Talk:Ayodhya dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Older messages[edit]

Hi Baka, I was just trying to improve the quality of the whole page than anything else. I realize somehow you are insistent on having the political fallout section. Well I am not particularly happy with it because it says some feel with out naming a source. Please provide a source or take that sentence back. I also feel that the Godhra incident is not relavent in a Ayodhya debate. Please give a justification for that here. Just because karsevaks were massacared doesnt mean that it needs a mention here. If that has to stay then the pre demolition shooting of karsevaks should also be included. Bye --Khammam 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have given enough time for a response. As there was no response I am going ahead and removing the Godhra incident from this article--Khammam 05:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Hindu view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by many Muslims and 'Marxist'.[4]

This is so obviously written by someone with a very definite bias..."marxist", lol. I'm editing this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.126.144 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes quotation[edit]

Ok, I hope everyone reads this because I want to make this clear: no more edit warring on the page. User:Backtalking khartoumi tried to add this section just before he was blocked. In my opinion, Pipes' blog is his personal opinion and is not at all relevant, giving undue weight to his view. If someone could show that others have compared it in similar ways, it might be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Pipes quote is completely unnecessary, representing one man's view that has hardly any academic credibility, not to mention what he describes can hardly be considered an exclusively Muslim practice (Christians have been doing the same thing for instance.) I won't delete it for now but I fail to see what quoting Daniel Pipes does besides make this article lose all credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.62.167 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Added that the court has by a majority verdict agreed that a Hindu temple was demolished in order to build the mosque. Based on the ASI report and the literary evidences submitted before the court —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.194.164 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know nothing about this topic except that it was featured on the front page, and that quote definitely stands out far more than a random quote from some random blogger would seem to deserve to do. We either need to demonstrate that Pipes's opinion on the topic is more-than-usually relevant, trim that bit way back, add some balancing quotes from other (perhaps more reliable) sources, or maybe a little of all the above. Xtifr tälk 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline article[edit]

I have merged the timeline article into this. It wasn't sourced at all and there's no reason for the split (other than the ability to make different partisan versions). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: if sources aren't provided (and they really should be better than Brittanica), I will wipe out the entire thing and make everyone start over. If people are actually interested in writing something useful, we need sources for legitimacy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

the shouting at timeline[edit]

The meassage in bold at the timeline looks inapproriate. I think it must be removed.--EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be issues that cause this article to require major revision. In many cases the issues do not lie with the accuracy of the given facts, but their presentation, and the lack of facts cited to support views other than that presented in the article. The cited facts themselves seem to show a selection bias which puts the impartiality and accuracy of the article in question. The article can be made more satisfactory if the presentation is made more objective and without the apparent emotional bias.

Some of the points needing discussion and revision are:

1. Mir Baqi / Mir Banki

Within Wikipedia the name is given as Mir Baqi in the articles [[Mir_Baqi|Mir Baqi], Babri Mosque, Ram Janmabhoomi and Babur. The spelling Mir Banki used in the article Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya, Vinay Katiyar, Bankipore and the present article. In view of the fact that both spellings seem to be prevalent, the existence of both should be mentioned. A link should be provided to the Mir Baqi article.

2. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The phrase "the disputed structure sharing walls with Sita and Hanuman Mandir got destroyed in 1992" needs revision. The use of the phrase "got destroyed" implies accidental destruction, not deliberate demolition as in the present case.

In contrast, the next sentence states "The original Hindu temple was demolished or dramatically modified on the orders of the Mughal Emperor Babur ..." which has a totally different tone and bears the implication of deliberate action.

3. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "A movement was launched in 1984 by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP party) to reclaim the site for Hindus who want to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala), at this spot. Many Muslim organizations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the disputed structure and carried out the 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya along with strong opposition to building of the proposed new temple even threatening the Head of current Ram Temple (at same spot since 1992)" Seem to show different attitudes towards the actions of Hindus and Muslims, and needs to be re-written. The absence of supporting citations needs to be corrected.

4. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "The latest archeological evidence comes from examination of the site after the destruction of the Babri Mosque. The Archaeological Survey of India under Braj Basi Lal, although initially published as finding no significant structures as these reports were based on inconclusive facts and were mere a media leak, subsequently put forward evidence of a pre-existing temple predating the mosque by hundreds of years as its final report." need to be supported by suitable citations, or else needs to be removed as it makes a very serious accusation regarding a lack of impartiality on the part of the Archaeological Survey Of India.

5. Contradictory View

This entire section and specially its opening paragraph seem designed to cast doubt on the validity of the Contradictory View. The section heading itself seems to imply less respect for these opinions.

In order to meet the usual standards of a learned article, the apparent bias needs to be removed and the article re-written to stand on the merits of fact and not opinion.

--Fair1 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Need For Objectivity[edit]

I would like to apologize for making an error and including the post below as an edit to a previous posting. It should have been under a new section. This second post is to make this plain.

There appear to be issues that cause the article to require major revision. In many cases my dispute is not with facts, but their presentation. I believe that the article can be made more satisfactory if the presentation is made in a more objective and without the apparent emotional bias.

Some of the points needing discussion and revision are:

  1. Mir Baqi / Mir Banki

Within Wikipedia the name is given as Mir Baqi in the articles [[Mir_Baqi|Mir Baqi], Babri Mosque, Ram Janmabhoomiand Babur. The spelling Mir Banki used in the article Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya, Vinay Katiyar, Bankiporeand the present article. In view of the fact that both spellings seem to be prevalent, the existence of both should be mentioned. A link should be provided to the Mir Baqiarticle.

 Done Created redirect from Mir Banki to Mir Baqi SPat talk
  1. History Section:

The phrase "the disputed structure sharing walls with Sita and Hanuman Mandir got destroyed in 1992" needs revision. The use of the phrase "got destroyed" usually implies accidental destruction, not deliberate demolition as in the present case.

In contrast, the next sentence states "The original Hindu temple was demolished or dramatically modified on the orders of the Mughal Emperor Babur ..." which has a totally different tone and the implication of deliberate action.

 Done Content has been removed SPat talk
  1. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "A movement was launched in 1984 by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP party) to reclaim the site for Hindus who want to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala), at this spot. Many Muslim organizations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the disputed structure and carried out the 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya along with strong opposition to building of the proposed new temple even threatening the Head of current Ram Temple (at same spot since 1992)" Seem to show different attitudes towards the actions of the Hindus and Muslims, and needs to be re-written.

 Done Re-worded the part about Muslims reaction. SPat talk

4. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "The latest archeological evidence comes from examination of the site after the destruction of the Babri Mosque. The Archaeological Survey of India under Braj Basi Lal, although initially published as finding no significant structures as these reports were based on inconclusive facts and were mere a media leak, subsequently put forward evidence of a pre-existing temple predating the mosque by hundreds of years as its final report." need to be supported by suitable citations, or else needs to be removed as it makes a very serious accusation regarding a lack of impartiality on the part of the Archaeological Survey Of India.

 Done Content has been removed SPat talk

5. Contradictory View

This entire section and specially its opening paragraph seem designed to cast doubt on the validity of the Contradictory View. The section heading itself seems to imply less respect for these opinions.

In order to meet the usual standards of a learned article, the apparent bias needs to be removed and the article re-written to stand on the merits of fact and not opinion.

 Done Section removed and re-added as Excavations under Post independance SPat talk

--Fair1 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I think most of these concerns have been addressed, and hence I'm removing the NPOV template (hopefully just in time for the verdict!) SPat talk 10:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring[edit]

I have done some restructuring for style, but I'm afraid lot of the nuetrality issues are still there. SPat talk 10:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I did some of this too, mostly standardizing what we're calling the mosque, and removing some POV language.TN | ! 09:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction -- more NPOV wording on the existence of Rama as a historical person[edit]

I changed the introduction and the religious issues sections to reflect the fact that although Rama is revered by Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu, his existence as a historical person, and his birthplace if indeed he was a historical person, are not established. The problem exists to some degree with many traditional religious figures: such figures occupy a continuum from ones for whom there is little evidence of their historical existence (e.g. Zeus, Adam) to those whose historical existence is scarcely disputed (e.g. the Mormon Joseph Smith), though some stories about what they did are believed only by their devout followers.CharlesHBennett (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ram universal to Hindus?? rubbish[edit]

Ram is no universally revered hindu deity. he's basically worshipped in north india as a hero, and is not viewed with great respect elsewhere in the country. north indians need to get that into their head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.209.28 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, are you kidding me, Sree Ram is praised and loved in every part of India, even in the south. Get a hold of yourself. 117.204.86.11 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

IP: 117.96.209.28 stop writing rubbish. Lord Ram is revered all over India.188.48.90.13 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ram is not revered in South India. It is Krishna. And both are incarnations of Vishnu. Krishna Jayanthi is perfomed on a larger scale than Ram Navami in South India. Go to Udupi during Krishna Jayanthi to know what I am trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.149.7 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation... not a suggestion[edit]

It seems that the political scene and progress in India has come to a very unstable point. In such a situation its better to leave the strings of a case as sensitive as the Ayodhya one undisturbed. Or else it may lead to a great disturbance in many other areas which can be even more uncontrollable. Drop the decision of the case at wherever it is now. In future if there is any progress or adress to the issue it can be dealt later on with a better experience and composure.

Just an OBSERVATION... not a suggestion[edit]

The political scene in India seems to be in a very unstable state and the progress beyond saturation point. In such a situation it would be wise to leave the strings of a case as sensitive as the Ayodhya one undisturbed, or else it can lead to an uncontrollable disturbance in many other areas. Better drop the case wherever it stands. In future if there is any progress or issues to be adressed, it can be dealt with much more experience and compusure.

Where are all the citations?[edit]

This article seems to be very weak, especially in the history section. Most references are missing, and the history section reads as if it was written by someone with an agenda. As a disclaimer, I am neither Hindu or Muslim but just an atheist European. My problem is that I cannot trust this article, and the way it is written makes me take it with a huge grain of salt. Should this article be marked in some way, warning the unsuspecting readers that trust everything that is written on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.224.176 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO, most of the important points have inline citations. Wherever you have specific concerns, you can tag them using the citation needed template. SPat talk 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)



Ayodhya debateAyodhya dispute — Debate seems euphemistic. The issue is, at heart, a dispute over who has rights over the area occupied by the mosque/temple. RegentsPark (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes. I missed that. Both GHits and GNews show that Ayodhya dispute IS the most common name. And, of course, its a dispute. Shovon (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a dispute GBooks GNews. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, as per Redtigerxyz. Now that I think about it, "debate" is a weird word to describe this. SPat talk 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly debate is not the correct word but according to Indian Judiciary and government it is a "Title Dispute". So it should either be "Ayodhya Title Dispute" or if this is not possible at least the search for this title should redirect to "Ayodhya dispute" page.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Dispute is a more accurate and common term.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ayodhya dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ayodhya dispute/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

However, thousands of Hindu temples had been destroyed by Islamic invaders for both political and religious reasons. The 2007 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica notes that there is no temple structure in the ancient and holy Hindu places of Varanasi and Mathura which dates prior to the 17th century.

The Hindu Nationalist movement has been pressing for reclaiming three of its most holy sites which had been suffered sacrilege at the hands of Islam - at Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi. L K Advani, the leader of the BJP in his memoirs argues "If Muslims are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians are entitled to a Christian atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hundus to expect a Hindu atmosphere in Ayodhya.

The following text has been added to me

Last edited at 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 08:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ayodhya dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ayodhya dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)