Talk:Demolition of the Babri Masjid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Non-reliable Source

I'm removing this paragraph

“ Shortly after noon, several men dressed in saffron broke through the security barriers and attacked the television journalists and camera crew. Encouraged by the inability of the police to control the situation, the crowd moved towards the police cordon protecting the Mosque. Several international media representatives were locked up in nearby temples, while the mob ravaged the structure, reducing it to rubble ”

sourced to the website "countercurrents.org". This websites promotes Neo-Nazi, antisemitic and anti-Indian Conspiracy Theories alleging (here) that 9/11 was a "Jewish Conspiracy" and that 7/11 was a joint "Jewish-Hindu conspiracy"(here). Therefore, this website qualifies as a racist hate-site. It does not meet criteria for WP:RS since it violates the section on Questionable sources.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How was it demolished?

From the photos, it looks like it was quite a substantial structure, so demolishing it would presumably have required a lot of work and/or equipment. However, neither this article nor the main Babri Masjid one explains what actually happened. They jump straight from describing the background and protests, to the aftermath. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a interview of Bal Thackeray in which describes about that event, but it is in marathi iirc Iamgreat4eva (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Demolition of Babri Masjid

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Demolition of Babri Masjid's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "newindpress.com":

• From Babri Mosque: Babri Masjid demolition was planned 10 months in advance - PTI
• From Ayodhya dispute: "Babri Masjid demolition was planned 10 months in advance - PTI". Newindpress.com. Retrieved 2010-09-26.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Huge issues with this article.

1. Demolition is an ambiguous term that could be construed as something officiated or approved by a government or commercial facility. Destruction would be more appropriate, as this was a clandestine and illegal act.

2. What actually happened? There should be a timeline, a description of the actual act, or something similar to. This article says NOTHING about the actual demolition. Just protests, arguments, historical background, and then what happened after. What is left of the structure? Who/how/why did archaeological studies after it was destroyed? Who exactly destroyed it? How? Government response? Supposedly in the article it says "Using hand implements" but one would consider this unlikely. That sounds more like a speculative anecdote. Supposedly a committee was created and a report submitted, but is there even a hint as to the factual and objective nature of this report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.87.64 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Request for semi-protection.Rsamahamed 13:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsamahamed (talk • contribs)

Calling the disputed site a Mosque?

The disputed site was never recognized by any constitutional authority and legal authorities in India as a Minority place of worship or Mosque. I would like to change all occurences to the article from "Mosque" to "Disputed structure" Sbadrinarayanan (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. It's called a mosque in many sources, and India's action or inaction doesn't change that. Of course, you'd have to start with getting agreement to change Babri Mosque in any case. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A vast majority of the sources call it a mosque; and it certainly was not disputed was most of its existence. Regardless of any recognition (and I am pretty sure the court verdicts have referred to it as a mosque; you really need to provide a source for your claim) it was still used as a place of worship by Muslims, so it certainly deserved the name. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not NPOV

This article doesn't exactly strike me as NPOV. Particularly the first line of "hindu hearsay" strikes me a) as pejorative b) outside the facts presented by the Archaeological survey of India.

I think also if you are presenting the entirety of the argument then you should link to the Babri Mosque Page, the Archaeology of Ayodhya Page, the Ramjanmabhoomi page and the Ayodhya Debate page.

What you are presenting is more so a tacit undermining of the facts of the case and the High Courts ruling. As well, why is there no mention about lacking features of a typical mosque from this mosque, for example water spigots for holy ablution or a minaret?

Better articles than this exist about this issue already on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.1.24.190 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Our job here is not to reflect the high court ruling, but to reflect reliable sources. Some of them question the basis of the high-court ruling, and the article reflects that. If you want to add anything about the Masjid not being a real masjid, then find a source that says so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please change map of India on this page

Hi,

I request you to Change the map of India. It is incorrectly shown in the image. I strongly object this. And request the author to change it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_the_Babri_Masjid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.136.246 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please see Question 6 in Talk:India/FAQ. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)‎

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Demolition of the Babri Masjid. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710195454/http://www.erces.com/journal/articles/archives/v02/v_02_04.htm to http://www.erces.com/journal/articles/archives/v02/v_02_04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018084907/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

kar sevaks as "(volunteers)"

Seems quite inaccurate and POV to me. This site labels them as Hindutva activists, that's much more appropriate. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Basawala: The sources I've read contain various translations, including "activists" and "volunteers". If you have a good source discussing both terms, I'd suggest adding a footnote about the imprecise translation. Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

so basically idk what to rite so ya ps this is Vira chhatwal223.190.104.83 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ramayana as part of Hindu Itihasa

@Pectore and Kautilya3: Strictly speaking Ramayana is part of Hindu Itihasa, it is documented so in Ramayana page and Itihasa page. Religion and mythology being English words do not fit naturally, Itihasa is appropriate and has a developed article. --G (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Ramayana was a kavya. Valmiki himself calls it so. I can produce reliable sources if you want. But it will take some time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You are right, it is a kavya and I think that does not prohibit Ramayana from being part of Itihasa! G (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

These sources use the term in passing (the first one linking it to purana), but they don't throw any light on the issue. If you want to push this viewpoint, you need to find a source that explains what itihasa means and why Ramayana is suppose to one of those. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No Kautilya, it does not link Ramayana to Purana it links Ramayana to Itihasa. Yes they mention in passing but these are scholarly reference that have been cited. I am not pushing any viewpoint that is unsubstantiated. I genuinely believe that Ramayana is a kavya that is part of Itihasa, I am not contradicting your viewpoint that it is a Kavya. The article on Ramayana says it is Itihasa and the article on Itihasa says Ramayana is part of it. And this article is neither about detailed exploration of either subject. Qualifying Ramayana as part of Hindu Itihasa is a simple claim. In fact, the traditional sanskrit 'kavya' in context of Hindu scripture is a subset of 'Itihasa' instead of 'Purana', 'Itihasa' and 'Purana' are the top two categories, there are multiple sub categories. --G (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert on etymology or religious texts, but this much is obvious; 1) we cannot use those Wikipedia articles to establish anything, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and because those articles are appallingly unreferenced; 2) this is the English Wikipedia, and if no single word exists to precisely translate a term from another language, then a wordier term should be used. Furthermore, I see no evidence that the sentence "In Hindu mythology, the city of Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama" relies purely on a single version of the Ramayana. Vanamonde (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am confident about the usage of Itihasa to qualify Ramayana, I gave four scholarly sources. This could be a wording: "In Hindu epic Ramayana the city of Ayodhya is the birthplace of Ram." no religion, mythology, kavya, itihasa, etc. --G (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are the meanings of the Sanskrit descriptions:

• kavya - literature, creation of a poet, most likely fiction.
• itihasa - literally, "thus, it was"; history, actual happenings.
• purana - literally, "ancient"; generally taken to mean ancient legend

We are certainly not going to accept your claims that Ramayana was history. You have to do much more than throw up a few random links in order to make a case. But you would be basically wasting your time. Ramayana was not history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to argue that Ramayana is considered Itihasa as pointed in the scholarly references categorically, it is an elementary information in context of classification of Hindu scriptures. Chandrasekharendra Saraswati also writes so. You are probably getting confused because you are thinking in English. Several words like Dharma, Punya, etc do not have equivalent in English and people often get confused when thinking in terms of their loosely equated English words. You can certainly find better content about this in Sanskrit, Marathi, Tamil, etc. Unfortunately they will not be available online. What is your opinion on the alternate wording I suggested, it does not use Itihasa either. --G (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If I am "confused", any other reader of Wikipedia will be confused. That is reason enough to avoid this woolly terminology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think not, you are reading too much into 'Ramayana is Itihasa', which is a classification of Hindu scriptures. But I am not hung on it. What is your opinion on the alternate wording I suggested, it does not use Itihasa either. --G (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As Vanamonde93 has already explained, the sentence is not talking about any particular text, but rather about the present-day Hindu belief. If "mythology" has too much negative connotation, I could settle for "tradition". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

NPOV issues

I am listing here some NPOV issues that I think need to be addressed:

• The Babri Masjid part is not in sync with the Ayodhya dispute and Babri Masjid articles. In particular, it states unequivocally that the Masjid was built by Mir Baqi, whereas the truth is that we really don't know.
• It doesn't acknowledge the fact that R.S. Sharma et al were hired by BMAC to represent them in the negotiations.
• I only see the viewpoints of the pro-Masjid historians and not those of the pro-Mandir historians.

I am going to work on these issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To take the points in order; 1) I'm unaware of contemporary historians arguing that Baqi did not build a mosque; the uncertainty, as far as I am aware, relates to the existence of a temple beforehand. 2) If you feel Sharma is unreliable for that reason, I would rather replace him as a source 3) I think we need to tread carefully here. The threshold for inclusion isn't balancing pro-Mandir and pro-Masjid historians; it's giving due weight to all significant points of view (yes, K, I know you know this; this is for the benefit of anyone else who gets involved) among reliable sources. So far as I can see there isn't much disagreement among actual historians about the events post-1949, which is really what this article is about. If the background section tilts too far in either direction, we can work on that, but really arguments over historical details should be in the Ayodhya Dispute article. Vanamonde (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Van, things are a lot more complicated than you imagine:

• I don't know of any contemporary historians, other than Hans Bakker, who did research on Ayodhya and published peer-reviewed HISTRS articles.
• RS Sharma et al is actually the best source there is for the Masjid view, but it is one-sided.
• The evidence for Babur's construction of the mosque is simply not there. All the contemporary historians took the inscription recorded by Beveridge at face value. But as discussed at Babri Masjid#Inscriptions, different inscriptions were recorded at different points of time. So, none of them could have been the original inscriptions, if there were any. Moreover, there were European travellers that witnessed the ruins of a temple after the mosque was supposedly constructed. Since these facts are now public, we can't pretend that they don't exist!
• We can't escape the pro-Masjid vs pro-Mandir dichotomy because all the historians that commented on the issue fall into one of the two camps, save for Hans Bakker.

Anyway, as I said, I am happy to fix the issues. Let us continue after I do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have serious issues with turning scholarly positions into a dichotomy, when they're most decidedly a continuum. Characterizing Jaffrelot or Thapar or Habib as "pro-Masjid" is problematic. But really, this isn't the place for that; let's talk specifics. What contemporary RS do we have actually disputing Babur's construction? Also: I'm not keen on including any travelers accounts in this article, because this is about the contemporary incident. Aside from the construction, which bits of this article do you take issue with? Vanamonde (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Here, for instance, is a statement in this page:

This site is often believed to at the place where the Babri Masjid stood in the city of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. Historical evidence to support this belief is scarce, and several historians have stated that Ayodhya became a religious centre with a number of temples only in the 18th century AD.

References

The Ayodhya dispute page says in contrast:

Indologist Hans T. Bakker concludes that there might have been a temple at the supposed birth spot of Rama built by the Gahadavalas. In subsequent years, the cult of Rama developed within Vaishnavism, with Rama being regarded as the foremost avatar of Vishnu. Consequently, Ayodhya's importance as a pilgrimage centre grew. In particular, multiple versions of Ayodhya Mahatmya (magical powers of Ayodhya) prescribed the celebration of Ram Navami (the birthday of Rama).

References

So, whereas this page says the evidence was "scarce", there was apparently enough evidence for Hans Bakker to conclude there was a temple. Whereas this page says Ayodhya became a religious centre in the 18th century, according to Bakker it happened soon after the Gahadavala period, especially in the 16th century, exactly the time when Babur was supposed to have built a mosque there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With respect, K, you're misreading the text I wrote. "evidence is scarce" refers to the birthplace of Rama. The article acknowledges that a structure existed there beforehand, and that some historians have identified it as a Hindu temple. The importance of Ayodhya as a pilgrimage site is probably best left out of this page, as it is tangential. Also, Bakker's statement seems to be supporting what I said earlier, which is that the Mosque is usually attributed to Babur... Vanamonde (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, we can leave out the pilgrimage aspect. It is tangential to the topic. But the existence of a temple is attributed to "popular belief" in the present text, whereas Hans Bakker said it too. In the Layton & Thomas volume, page 8, you find William Fench's testimony from early 1600s describing ruins identified as "Rama's castle and houses". "Rama's house" might not be much different from his "birth place", even though Layton & Thomas try to distinguish the two ideas. Bakker's analysis of Ayodhya Mahatmya says that Ramadurga or Ramkot was described as a holy place and a "Rama (Janmasthana)" was mentioned to be in there. And this ruined castle was a place of pilgrimage when Finch saw it.

By 1767, when Tieffenthaler visited the place, it had been replaced by a mosque and people were praying to a vedi outside the mosque. This is clearly continuity for me. It also shows that there was no mosque there in 1600. You say Bakker also attributes the mosque to Babur. Yeah, he cites Beveridge. The inconsistencies between the inscription recorded by Beveridge and the earlier records have only been analysed by Kishore Kunal, which I have documented in Babri Masjid#Inscriptions. None of these inscriptions is authentic. If a historian took one to be authentic on good faith, we can't assume that that settles the matter. Propaganda and fakery are endemic to disputes like this. On the basis of available evidence, it cannot be said that Babur constructed the mosque. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"the existence of a temple is attributed to 'popular belief'" It isn't, though. What's attributed to popular belief is that the temple was demolished to make way for the mosque. The mosque came after a pre-existing structure; that much is clear. This structure has been described as both Buddhist and Hindu, with the "Hindu temple" view predominating. But there's no evidence for demolition at all, and no scholar that I have seen seriously considers the demolition: even Bakker is only saying "replaced". The media might use a "what could it have been except demolition" argument; we cannot use that, without much more support from RS than it has at the moment. In sum, there's scholarly support for the existence of a temple, but only popular belief in its demolition. Vanamonde (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: I've removed the fragment about pilgrimage, since we're agreed on that (it needs to go into the Ayodhya Dispute article, though, as there's a lot of support for the "recent site" view), and used a colon to indicate what exactly there's limited evidence for. Vanamonde (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Bakker does talk about 'destruction', quite prominently in fact:

... the original birthplace temple dated from the 10th or 11th century. Before its destruction the temple must have been one of the main pilgrimage centres of Ayodhya, especially on the occasion of Ramanavami... The destruction of the temple would not have implied the end of all forms of worship in and around the holy site. Just as they do today, pilgrims may have assembled near the mosque to have darshan of the tirtha, and in order to perform the puja special provisions may have been made.

• Note that the local Hindus never said that 'Baqi' demolished a temple. They said that Aurangzeb demolished the structure that was believed to be Rama's castle. See Layton & Thomas, pp.8-9. Both Tieffenthaler and Buchanan were told that Aurangzeb did it. Sure, this "belief", as it has been labelled, occured in the 18th century (as RS Sharma et al. note). But that was essentially when it was demolished, in the recent past. It was only the Muslims that made up a story about the mosque having been built by Babur, and of Babur being asked to do so by somebody called "Musa Ashiqan".

His Highness [Musa Ashiqan] again said [to Babur]: "I am annoyed by the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells. When thou becomest King, thou shalt build a Musjid at this place."

This text was part of a supposed inscription that was given to Francis Buchanan. So, both Hindus and Muslims believed that the structure was demolished, but the Muslims were obfuscating about when it was demolished. We have seen witnesses saying that there was a "Rama's castle" there until recently (recent to early 1700s).

• Kishore Kunal analyses these happenings quite thoroughly. Sure, he is not a historian. But he is a highly ranked police officer and is perfectly well-qualified to investigate issues of forgery and fraud. And, he is well-educated in history too, apparently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Have you read the book, in entirety? As far as I remember, quite a lot of his narratives don't coalesce with the broader scholarly consensus.Surely, he provides some interesting insights from a perspective, that was matched by few but overall, I'm skeptical as to using it in a stand-alone manner, without being bolstered by other solid references.

• I think this is getting a bit complicated. We have a number of scholars who make the basic points in the narrative currently in the article, which are: mosque built by Babur/Babur's general, temple/previous structure existed, demolition uncertain. You (Kautilya) are saying that Bakker is saying the mosque was not built by Babur, and that a temple was demolished to make way for it. Even if we're convinced of the truth of this (and I'm not; Bakker is just one source, and I'm unwilling to give Kunal much weight when there's actual scholars writing about this: and I'm unwilling to give any weight at all to local narratives, unless and until they are explicitly endorsed by historians) what is the change you would like to see? We can consider adding some of this uncertainty, per WP:DUE. I don't think we can consider rewriting the whole thing from Bakker's perspective. Sitush: I'd be interested to hear your perspective here. Vanamonde (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Pinged here. I don't know much about the topic but there are a lot of big names already cited in the article and I doubt we can throw them out just because Bakker and someone else think differently. Yes, all sorts of stories were made up back in the day - that is one reason we have a problem with Raj ethnographers etc as reliable sources - but if modern academics take on board the same stuff and are happy with what the older sources recorded then we have to go with it. DUE is an issue and one swallow (Bakker) does not a summer make. His opinion needs to be mentioned, obviously, but not at great expense to those of others. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, yes, I have read a good part of Kunal's book. (I rarely go by snippets).

Vanamonde93, you said, "But there's no evidence for demolition at all, and no scholar that I have seen seriously considers the demolition: even Bakker is only saying "replaced"." I gave you a direct quote from Bakker, where he says it was "destroyed". Yes, Ayodhya dispute is complicated. But this question really isn't.

Sitush, I would expect quality matters more than quantity. A scholar says:

Despite the recent flurry of publications inspired by the janmabhumi controversy, the most comprehensive study of Rama's city remains Hans Bakker's monumental Ayodhya (1986); the historical development it meticulously traces warrants summarizing here.

So, no, it will not do to brush Bakker's analysis under the carpet. None of the Indian scholars have done any research on Ayodhya. They merely cobbled up commentaries when the dispute arose. True scholarship on Ayodhya is only seen in Bakker and van der Veer.

Let me ping Joshua Jonathan for another opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is saying that Bakker should be brushed under the carpet? I agree that quality counts but you seem now to be suggesting that the likes of Jaffrelot, Thapar etc are somehow not quality when in fact they are respected, widely cited academics. Bakker deserves a place in this thing; he doesn't deserve to govern it. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Jaffrelot and Thapar haven't yet entered the debate, but R. S. Sharma has (who is almost equal to them in stature, in my view). But even the best scholars can get caught up in political biases when they start making political commentaries. Sharma starts out by saying "the only evidence VHP cites is Skanda Purana". So it is clear that his project is to counter the VHP than to do an objective study of the subject. In fact, it later turned out that he was among a group of scholars hired by the Babri Masjid Action Committee precisely to counter VHP, a fact not known at that time. In any case, the conclusions he draws are radically different from Bakker's and, on objective examination, turn out to be wrong. For example, he was only using the published book of Skanda Purana, which he claims had additions made as late as the 18th century, and so nothing can be relied upon. Bakker, on the other hand, was using a private manuscript from the 16th century, which is obviously uncorrupted by any such additions. This is just an example, but it goes on like this. I have said many times in the past that all Indian scholars on this subject fall into one camp or the other. So, I prefer to use foreign scholars. If I have to use Indian scholars, then I check both the sides of the picture and try to see which version stands up. Layton & Thomas, the very editors in whose collection Sharma's article appears, have listed the known facts in their introduction. We can't ignore those. If our project is to present facts as best as we can discern them, then brushing them under the carpet is not on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

I don't know a whole lot about the area but I don't think we can dismiss Thapar or Jaffrelot as somehow being less important than Bakker. I'm also a tad troubled by the comments above about "hindus and muslims believed this" and "muslims obfuscated that". Seems to be bordering on WP:OR, shouldn't we be sticking to what the sources say rather than what we think happened? --regentspark (comment) 20:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm even more troubled by this talk of Indian scholars vs foreign scholars. Kautilya3, a statement of the sort "If I have to use Indian scholars, then I check both the sides of the picture and try to see which version stands up." is definitely veering into OR territory. We don't evaluate scholars based on their nationality but rather on their credibility in the scholarly community. And, we definitely don't go around checking "both sides of the picture" but rather let scholars do that for us.--regentspark (comment) 20:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark, thanks for your comment. I didn't bring up Thapar and Jaffrelot. Vanamonde did. Perhaps he can explain why he did.

Regarding, "Hindus and Muslims believed this", the lead says at the moment "at a site considered by some Hindus to be Ram Janmabhoomi", which seems to suggest that the belief is restricted to Hindus, and moreover some Hindus. Entirely misleading. So, what do you want us to do about it? I don't see how we can avoid the talk of Hindus and Muslims given the nature of the subject. Who should I say put up an inscription that says, I am annoyed by Hindoos ringing bells? I would appreciate if you can show how to reword any one of these statements. (This is only a question of wording, I assure you. And, you know me well enough to know that.)

Regarding nationality of scholars, what I want to say is that, all these scholars are caught up in the dispute. If we can agree to throw them all out, and use THIRDPARTY scholars, then fine, I won't need to bring up nationality. Can we agree to do that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I brought up Thapar and Jaffrelot (among others) simply because they contradict some of the points made above. The review article published in 1990 by Gopal and Thapar, among others, is skeptical even of whether present-day Ayodhya is in fact the precise location referred to in mythology. They also discount anecdotal evidence of a temple (which is all Bakker had: he had no archaeological evidence.) I don't have Jaffrelot's book with me at the moment but IIRC he does accept the construction under Babur, and disputes the demolition, though I intend to check that soon. More generally, it is reasonable to discount sources who are, for instance, relying on funding from one side or the other. I do not think it reasonable to discount Indian sources simply on the assumption that all Indian scholars have gotten involved in the debate: indeed, even if they have gotten involved, this does not necessarily make their writings unreliable. Vanamonde (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, what you call "Thapar" is the statement issued by the JNU History department in November 1989, the same month when VHP was doing shinyas in Ayodhya with the consent of the Rajiv Gandhi government. It was said to have been "issued" by the History department, sort of as an official statement of the department, and authored by virtually every academic in the department. So let us call it the "JNU statement".
• We don't know what research they did to produce the statement, because there were no peer-reviewed publications by any of them on the topic of Ayodhya prior to this time. Peter van der Veer says that their statement regarding Ayodhya being the former Saketa is basically Hans Bakker's research [1]. So they picked up from Bakker whatever they liked and discarded whatever they didn't like. "Contradict" is too strong a word for what they were writing. That term would only be appropriate if they considered what he wrote and advanced arguments against it. They did nothing of the sort. In fact, they haven't done anything of that sort even till today.
• RegentsPark has warned us against producing our own pronouncements on scholarly research. So, let me just say that Bakker did a "monumental" three-volume study of Ayodhya, from the beginning of its existence till the current time, and he took into account a variety of evidence, including archaeological, scriptural, traditional and anecdotal, during all of this time. He knows for instance that there were five temples in Ayodhya built by Gahadavalas and there were none built again till the disintegration of the Mughal empire. He says that one of these temples was at a place that came to be called the Janmasthan in the Ayodhya-mahatmya, possibly based on local beliefs/traditions. This is the temple, he says, that was destroyed by Babur (according to Beveridge inscription). Two others were destroyed by Aurangzeb, one got washed away in the river and the the fate of the fifth is unknown.
• You are free to believe whomever you want to believe, but you certainly can't give more weight to the involved scholars (in fact, I might say deeply involved scholars, who appeared as experts to argue one side of the case) than you can give the uninvolved scholars who had no bones to fry in the debate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Partisan historians

RegentsPark has chided me for passing my own opinions on the scholars being used. So, here is a selection of commentaries on them:

Jain, Rama and Ayodhya (2013, pp. 154–155)

It is indisputable that the Ramjanmabhumi/Babri Masjid debate has bee dominated by a handful of historians from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi University and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), with stray participation of one or two other universities. The historians involved have been of Marxist orientation, some admittedly even card-holding members of the two Communist parties, the CPI and CPM. Their writings on the issue have appeared in the official publications of these parties--New Age and People's Democracy respectively, and also been published by Left-sponsored publishing groups like People's Publishing House, Sahmat and Tulika Books. Perhaps that could explain why their stance has often seemed more driven by ideology than academic deliberation. Yet, some of these academics, who even appeared as BMAC (Babri Masjid Action Committee) experts during negotiations between the VHP, BMAC and the Government in 1990-1991, claimed to be "independent historians", and demanded that they be recognized as such. (emphasis added)

A perusal of their writings and statements reveals an unswerving resolve to deny any possibility of a temple beneath the Masjid and, thus, fixity of purpose. So they initially pronounced Rama to be a mythic figure; questioned the identification of present day Ayodhya with Valmiki's Ayodhya; touted little remembered variants of the Rama story to counter Valmiki's version; declared Ayodhya was better known as a sacred city of the Buddhists and Jains; and even ruled out the existence of a Rama cult at Ayodhya prior to the eighteenth century. The belief in a Janmabhumi temple being destroyed by Babar they attributed to British machinations in the nineteenth century. For long, Marxist historians insisted that the Babri Masjid was built on virgin land.

Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016, p. xl) (Kunal was the Government official appointed to mediate between the two parties)

It would thus appear that the four historians who wrote the 'report to the nation' were really experts nominated by All India Babri Masjid Action Committee and were not independent. But they always pretended to be impartial professional historians. In fact, in their 'report to the nation' they criticized the claims of V.H.P. only and made no comments on the documents submitted by A.I.B.M.A.C. Had they really been truly impartial historians, they would have commented on the evidence submitted by both parties and presented their report to the nation or M.H.A. without any bias or prejudice.

K. K. Muhammed, former Regional Director of the Archaeological Survey of India

I had written: "I can reiterate this (the existence of a Hindu temple before it was displaced by the Babri mosque) with greater authority - for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-'77 under Prof BB Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted only one part of our findings while suppressing the others..."

By JNU historians, I meant the Leftist historians such as Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, DN Jha, Bipin Chandra and RS Sharma who do not want to see a solution to the Ayodhya issue. Till the Allahabad High Court judgment came out on September 30, 2010, these historians maintained that there was no temple beneath the Babri mosque.

"It was they who connived with the extremist Muslim groups to derail all attempts to find an amicable solution to the Masjid issue. Some of them even took part in several government-level meetings and supported the Babri Masjid Action Committee," he said.

M. G. S. Narayanan, former chairman of the ICHR

Professor MGS Narayanan, former chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), said Muhammed is perhaps right about his claim on the existence of a Hindu temple at the disputed site. "Many mosques and monuments were erected on sites where temples existed earlier. I also agree with what Muhammed has said about Prof. Irfan. It was during his tenure as chairman of ICHR [that] the democratic functioning of the institution was destroyed. It [was] very difficult to work with him. I have my own bitter experiences. It was he and his team that had branded me an RSS man. It was he and his team that turned Jawaharlal Nehru University and the ICHR into a den of Marxist historians," MGS said.

I don't particularly care whether they are Marxist or not, but I take note of the fact that their participation in this dispute may have been coloured by ideology than pure academic concerns. The fact that they took positions in support of Masjid early on, and supported through thick and thin, means to me that they were a party to the dispute. They are by no means THIRDPARTY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya, now you're stretching things. I could just as easily argue as you do that these historians/officials are biased and toss out everything that they say. Since we don't do that on Wikipedia, we must instead focus on which scholars are generally considered the more "scholarly" by the community of scholars. People like Thapar, Jaffrelot and Habib are generally considered more reliable than the ones you quote above. Regardless, I still stick by my contention that you're wandering far into OR territory. Take this post for example. The conclusion that the private manuscript of Bakker is more reliable than the Skanda Purana used by Sharma is entirely your own conclusion. Then, you go on to say "If I have to use Indian scholars, then I check both the sides of the picture and try to see which version stands up". Seeing "which version stands up" is not something you should be doing. One of the reasons why we prefer peer reviewed journals is because other historians get to evaluate whether the chosen "standing up version" is reasonable or not. Personally, I think you're getting overly involved with the topic and are heading into the territory of "research". That's not something you should be doing. --regentspark (comment) 23:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)P.S. Please don't ping me. I'm trying to avoid this page :( --regentspark (comment) 23:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Skanda Purana issue is not my original research. It has been analysed in Jain, Battle for Rama (2017, pp. 90, 92–93). Bakker explicitly labels each version of the Ayodhya Mahatmya he is using as "A rescension", "S rescension" and so on. Even a cursory reading of Bakker makes it quite clear that these manuscripts evolved in time, and that evolution itself is the key evidence base of Bakker in tracing the history of Ayodhya. Utcursch has read the book and he can verify this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

It's fairly clear that there's serious disagreement about the various sources here, but let's try to be practical for a moment. Most of this article is about contemporary events, about which there isn't much disagreement in scholarly sources. The disagreements described above are about two paragraphs of historical background. There isn't going to be consensus to throw out Sharma and Gopal et al as sources: I don't see consensus developing to remove Udaykumar or any of the others, either. What specific issues do we then need to consider introducing Bakker as a source for? Vanamonde (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Evidence is scarce

It looks like we are back to this issue. Winged Blades of Godric mentioned Bakker and van der Veer. I have already discussed Bakker above. WBG, can you tell us what says van der Veer? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Demolition of the Babri Masjid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

It's more than time someone reviewed this well-written article. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review as always. I'm afraid I'm a little busy over the next few days; it might be as late as Wednesday before I get to this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments

This is a well-written and properly cited and illustrated article, so my comments will be brief.

• I wonder if the 'volunteers' gloss on 'kar sevaks' shouldn't go at the first instance rather than the second (both in the lead).

  This is a fair point, but I don't want to overburden the first sentence with detail. I've reworked it so that the non-English term isn't introduced without explanation.

• The image of 'Ayodhya city' is rather small, could be wikilinked and maybe shown a bit bigger. As far as I can tell it doesn't show the 3 domes of the Babri Masjid? Would be ideal if it did... we really ought to have some kind of photo.

  I agree that we should have an image, but finding one has proven quite difficult. First off, there are a half-dozen popular images of the mosque before its demolition that have been copied so often that determining their provenance is quite impossible. Second, it's recent enough that I'm not sure if taking a screenshot from a news article and claiming fair use would fly. If you think a reasonable NFUR could be written, I'm willing to upload an image from one of many news articles; there's some of the actual demolition, too.

  Why not? There can be very little commercial interest in these already heavily-exploited images, and if we use one at low resolution it should be fine. Not a requirement, of course.

• Side boxes: both are somewhat obtrusive and would be better replaced with navbars at the end of the article (indeed, of all relevant articles).

  These boxes have been contentious for a long time; getting consensus to reformat them would take me longer than rewriting this article.

  Ah. Like the planning committee accepting the skyscraper in a minute and spending the afternoon arguing about the bike sheds.

• " in later in the 19th century" - remove first "in".
• "..... idols of Rama ... the idol": one or more?

  More.

• Perhaps we should italicise and wikilink sanctum sanctorum and maybe also status quo.

  Done.

• " former Intelligence Bureau (IB) Joint Director," - maybe this can be said more briefly, maybe without the acronym at least.

  Done.

• "Hindutva" appears without explanation. Needs wikilink and probably a gloss.

  Done.

• pralaya nritya: is glossed (maybe needs italics), but it might be worth linking Pralaya and stating that it concerns the dissolution at the end of an age in Hindu religious cosmology.

  Done.

• Could wikilink intercommunal violence in lead and body.

  Done.

• Aftermath: "destruction of numerous others [i.e. mosques] that day": perhaps some examples needed here, and perhaps a separate citation really.

  Guha doesn't give examples, I'm afraid. I've duplicated the citation.

  They could presumably be discovered in some official report, but never mind.

• Bangladesh: no need to repeat the date.

  Done.

• In popular culture: could gloss Raam ke Naam with ("In the Name of God").

  Done.

• Not sure we should list films that just "mention" the demolition; I saw Slumdog Millionaire and don't recall the nanosecond involved, while having 5 "mentions" really says trivia rather too loudly. The other films (including Black Friday are sufficient.

  Done.

OK, the article meets the criteria. I hope to see an image soon! And if details of the other temples turn up, they'd be welcome also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

Please use LORD RAMA In place of RAMA CHAUDHARYGAUTAMJAIN (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Our article on Rama does not call him "Lord Rama". NiciVampireHeart 09:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:RNPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Demolition of the Babri Masjid → Destruction of the Babri mosque – This wasn't an organized removal as implied by the word "demolition". (See also the previous Talk page comment about this issue by 74.61.87.64 at 20:55, 15 September 2011.) Also, suggesting to change "Masjid" to "mosque", as the more typical way to refer to such a place in English. Note that the opening sentence of the article already refers to it as a mosque rather than a masjid. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Part Support. Fine with that, but it should be "Babri Mosque" on normal principles. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Per Vanamonde93 below on Masjid/Mosque, I now support Destruction of the Babri Masjid. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A) "Babri Masjid" is still the common name in reliable English language sources (easily confirmed by searching through google scholar, books, or news) and B) "destruction" suggests a natural event, which this wasn't. It was an intentional destruction by a mob, again, as documented by reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think "destruction" suggests a natural event at all. I think "demolition" suggests an organized action by professionals (please see the article on that subject). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

How about "sack of Babri Masjid"? 2A02:1812:1432:8600:F4E0:E203:5F6F:206A (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Part Support. but agree with Johnbod that the "M" in "Mosque" should be uppercase. "Babri Masjid" should remain in that form per Vanamonde and revised vote by Johnbod. "Destruction", however, does seem more apt regarding specific details of the event than "Demolition". "Sack of" does not have the right connotation since it suggests looting rather than destroying. Alternative terms "Wrecking of", "Ruining of", "Razing of", "Leveling of", "Obliteration of" or "Decimation of", while correctly descriptive, do not feel encyclopedically appropriate. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  I agree "destruction" is better, and I think more often used in sources. You have "demolition contractors", but not "destruction contractors". Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Johnbod and Roman Spinner:, I'm not seeing a basis in policy for "Mosque" over "Masjid". The relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME; There are 8330 hits on google scholar for "Babri Masjid", and only 3220 hits for "Babri Mosque". Furthermore, if we're making the argument that we shouldn't be using names from a different language, "Babri" is also translatable; it derives from a translation of "Babur's", Babur being the Mughal emperor who conquered the region. So logically, if we're translating, the title ought to be "Babur's mosque". Which I wouldn't support either, because again, the common name in English sources is "Babri Masjid". Vanamonde (Talk) 01:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Both changes are unnecessary and incorrect. 1) Controlled demolition is different than outright demolition; demolition by itself does not imply a "professional" (controlled) demolition - buildings are demolished in war. Destruction is a more general term that implies peripheral damage - a monument is demolished, while cities are destroyed. 2) The mosque was called Babri Masjid; it was not called Babri. Calling it Babri mosque is tantamount to calling the Taj Mahal the Taj palace, implying that it's proper name is Taj. Mr. Naik (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Demolished and demolition do not carry quite the same connotation. This article title uses demolition, not demolished. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support with M; this was mob action on a mosque, not a demolition - and "controlled demolition" above is ridiculous. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  @In ictu oculi: Have you seen the above evidence that English-language sources still use "Babri Masjid" far more often than "Babri Mosque"? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "Masjid" / "Mosque" disagreement, the central issue here may be framed in terms of English WP:COMMONNAME. The comparison with Taj Majal is basically inapplicable since Taj Mahal is arguably the most famous structure in the world, having been declared a winner of the New7Wonders of the World (2000–2007) initiative. On the other hand, Babri Masjid / Babri Mosque, while renowned, is not instantly recognizable by either name in the English-speaking world (where English is the first language) and results emanating from Google Scholar should be compared to those produced by English Google. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: You're citing COMMONNAME, but your position is quite contrary to the guideline. I used google scholar because it is likely to only produce results from reliable sources. On a general google search, "Babri Masjid" produces 10 million hits; "Babri Mosque" produces 500,000. On Google news (limited to english, by default) "Babri Masjid" produces 5 million hits; "Babri Mosque" produces less than 60,000. We don't generally choose names based on recognizability; that criterion matters only when someone commonly known has an "official name" different from the one they are known by (ie William Clinton -> Bill Clinton). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

On the basis of that evidence, I will follow Johnbod in revising my vote from Support to Part Support by still supporting the move to the term "Destruction", but no longer supporting the move from "Masjid" to "Mosque". I also noticed that while the Taj Mahal Wikipedia entry consistently refers to it as "the Taj Mahal", references to Babri Masjid do not consistently refer to it as "the Babri Masjid", thus I would also support the form, Destruction of Babri Masjid, as the main title header if consensus coalesces around removal of "the".

Taking a wider view, even the use of "Destruction" has some uncertainties in that Wikipedia main headers seem to use "Demolition", both sanctioned and unsanctioned, for individual entities — Demolition of Penn Station, Demolition of Palestinian homes, Demolition of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, Demolition of the Monument at San Stefano, Demolition of monuments to Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine, Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar, Demolition of Dhul Khalasa or Demolition of al-Baqi.

"Destruction", on the other hand, seems to be used for cities or heritage — Destruction of Neuss, Destruction of Psara, Destruction of Warsaw, Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL, Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia, Destruction of Albanian heritage in Kosovo or Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo. Some of the above main headers, however, may be POV, especially those describing unsanctioned or wartime "demolitions", which would better be described as "destructions", such as Masjid al-Dirar, Dhul Khalasa and al-Baqi in the previous paragraph. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just like the "Masjid vs Mosque" choice the sources overwhelmingly say "Babri Masjid was demolished" rather than "Babri Masjid was destroyed". I also agree that "demolition" in no way implies a "controlled demolition". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This article title uses demolition, not demolished, which is the word you quoted. Perhaps the connotation varies regionally, but my impression is that they are not equivalent. (Also, several of the links at that search result are either Wikipedia itself or things derived from it.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I would point out that the specific phrase "Demolition of the Babri Masjid" gets 300 more hits on google scholar than "Destruction of the Babri Masjid" does. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • But on the web as a whole, the "Destruction of …" variation gets more than three times as many hits as "Demolition of …" (347,000 vs. 122,000), and 300 is not a very big number (either in absolute or percentage terms). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

103.120.234.185 (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Kindly publish the full map of India otherwise I have to report it to the concern authority.

 Not done. What map do you want to use? There's already one in the infobox. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

the illegal activity was making of babri masjid over Illegally demolished Ram Mandir by Attackers came from Arab. 103.144.118.6 (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Picture

As no picture of the mosque is present in the article, I suggest to insert this picture in the Infobox: | image = بابری مسجد - انہدام سے پہلے.jpg I can't do it myself, because of the protection measures. Opzwartbeek (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be on the Urdu Wikipedia [2]. It needs to be transferred to commons.wikimedia.org before it can be used here. We also need a reliable source that authenticates this image as being genuine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Verdict from court is out

All 32 accused were acquitted by court in historic verdict as opposing party only presented evidences which has no relevances as admissible. Kindly update article. As per judicial this is not a pre-planned attack so update all references and opinion across article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.32.80 (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/babri-masjid-demolition-case-lk-advani-all-other-accused-acquitted-by-special-court/23018221

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

It's pretty clear - he wants these verdicts mentioned, which they should be, and had been by the time you closed this. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

|ans=

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

The heading is like" the site is known as ram mandir by some Hindus" not some Hindus everyone knows that there was Ram mandir there 103.85.8.93 (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Map Is wrong

Please remove map

Can you please elaborate? How is the map wrong? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The core of the matter

Simple. No other explanation. Just the beginnings of a Muslim Holocaust implemented by Hindutva policies of the RSS/ BJP Nazis.

Destroy mosques, plant artificial “archaeological evidence” about previously existing temples…have a sham trial and verdict and build a temple on top of a mosque. Terrorize the indian muslim people. 38.126.8.83 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Terrorists referred to as karsevaks

Destroying property and the place of worship of a terrorized minority community by using mob violence is one of the meanings of terrorism.

To label these terrorists with the Hindi equivalent of “ care giving volunteers” is literally the death of irony. 38.126.8.83 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Is kar sevak a term routinely used to refer to the followers of some of these groups? Or is it a self-attributed form of honorific? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I've rendered all by the quoted references to this phrase in simple English appropriate to the context in any given phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Kar sevak is indeed a term frequently used in the literature for these individuals; I do not see the term as a euphemism. To me it has always conveyed a closer connection to the relevant organizations than just individuals showing up to a political rally. As such I think the term needs mentioning more often than your edits have left it, but I'm open to discussing the phrasing of any individual fragment. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In term of organisation supporters/members turning up to rallies, is there a qualitative difference in terms of what a 'kar sevak' is in the context relative to a supporter/member? I can see that 'kar sevak' is used in some of the literature, but in lots of instances in the piece it just seemed like a foreign language term being used where English alternatives would suffice. 'Kar sevak' also seems relatively poorly/ill-defined on Wikipedia itself, with the phrase redirecting to Sevā where it is in turn only mentioned with respect to Sikhism - so the current state of play on Wiki is a poorly fleshed-out definition that does not draw any connection to the popularisation of the term for what seems, here, to be a catch-all term for the supporters/members of certain religious or nationalist political groups. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the term is poorly defined on Wikipedia, but that isn't, in and of itself, a reason not to use it here, if its absence would lead to a lack of precision: and in my opinion it would. The term is variously defined as encompassing "volunteer", "activist", "religious volunteer", and even "holy warrior", though I suspect the last is an overreach by the author. We would ideally have a workable stub about the subject, to which this article would link. We had a stub, not a particularly good one, that's since been merged; I do not recall if there was a merge discussion before that. The target of that merger, Sevā, also discusses the term. That said, I think I'd like to hear other opinions on whether using the non-English term is justified. The MOS is somewhat fuzzy with respect to when such use is justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semantically, if 'volunteer' is the primary sense of the term, that also makes for slightly odd and imprecise reading - "the volunteers did this, the volunteers did that" is actually less descriptive than words like supporters, demonstrators, protestors, etc. - a volunteer in English might be someone who helps organise an event, hands out flyers, water, that sort of thing. The act of turning up to a demonstration, however 'voluntarily', still makes one a demonstrator, descriptively, or, put another way, a 'volunteer' demonstrator would be rather redundant, since aren't almost all such activities 'voluntary'? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Temple pre exists the mosque

Article says that a non Islamic structure existed before the mosque was built. Please change it to say there was a Hindu temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. 2600:1700:1150:EC40:94F4:5FCF:197F:F356 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It is still disputed about what the old structure could be Crainsaw (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)