Talk:Ram Janmabhoomi

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

Claims from Encyclopaedia Britannica[edit]

Here is a copy of a reply I got from the Deputy Editor of EB.

Dear Mr. XXXX  : Your message below was forwarded to me from our UK office. The text you refer to appears in our article Ayodhya (Oudh). The current text has been edited somewhat, and it now reads:

Despite the city's great age, there are few surviving monuments of any antiquity. The Babri Mosjid (“Mosque of Babur”) was built in the early 16th century by the Mughal emperor Babur on a site traditionally identified as Rama's birthplace and as the location of an ancient Hindu temple, the Ram Janmabhoomi. Because of its significance to both Hindus and Muslims, the site was often a matter of contention. In 1990, riots in northern India followed the storming of the mosque by militant Hindus intent on erecting a temple on the site; the ensuing crisis brought down the Indian government. Two years later, on Dec. 6, 1992, the three-story mosque was demolished in a few hours by a crowd of Hindu fundamentalists. It was estimated that more than 1,000 people died in the rioting that swept through India following the mosque's destruction.

(I added the italics.)We do not assert definitively that the earlier temple actually existed, but that tradition places it there. If archaeological investigation establishes this fact—or if it disproves it—we will edit our text to reflect this new information.

Thank you for your interest in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

With best regards, XXXX Deputy Editor Encyclopaedia Britannica

  • Based on this could you remove the claim attributed to EB that the temple existed.

Lkadvani 10:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant to the quoted citation. Your quotation above is from the current Encyclopedia (post 1990). The quote in the article was from the 15th volume of the Encyclopedia of the years 1986 and 1989. It simply highlights that before 1990 there was a consensus that there was an ancient temple on the site. --Msiev 12:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So you doubt Encyclopoedia Brittanica too.Unless they say what you believe they are liars..

I didn't say I doubt EB, but I'm beginning to doubt your good faith. The above comment from EB is about the current EB (post 1990s), but the quote in the article is from an older edition of the EB (1980s).--Msiev 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya, We forget that current editions of Brittanica are less accurate than the previous ones.

Lkadvani 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to be sarcastic. EB has been known to remove information that is 'politically incorrect' but true nonetheless. Is there a 'political correctedness' policy on wikipedia? Don't think so. Besides, Koenraad Elst's scholarly review carries precedence over a vague claim by an EB editor who, for all we know, doen;t exist and you made it all up. Can;t assume good faith from you, given your track record of expressing intense and bilious hatred for everything Indian *cough Hindu *cough.(Netaji 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

The reason the quote is from an older pre-1990 version of the EB is to show that before the 1990s, there was a consensus that the mosque stood on an ancient temple. This consensus was also reflected in mainstream publications like the EB. --Msiev 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Article terribly biased and badly done[edit]

The article as it exists now is a disgrace to any NPOV assumptions. Further, its quite politically loaded and clearly right-wing with great gobs of pseudo-history spread quite thinly all over. I've tried righting atleast the top and put up the Factual Inaccuracy sign. Someone is welcome to try to clean the whole thing. -- Tigger69 11:46, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Article is not at all biased. look at the evidences provided[edit]

Uday 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As already noted below: Please be specific: what and where exactly is something disputed? --Kyuss 09:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the best articles I have read on the subject. All the statements are supported by references. The objections are, I notice, mostly from non-Hindus, and some of them are hilarious, like "I haven't seen Rama worshipped anywhere in India."

The objectors should put their money where their mouth is, and tell which of the statements or references are wrong. Merely objecting is not enough.

Please refrain from unfounded assertions about so-called "non-Hindu" contributors. This discussion should avoid ad hominem attacks and focus on accurate reporting.
I agree that the article is both heavily biased and poorly written. Those who disagree seem to view this article relative to other internet articles on the subject. However, Wikipedia's standards of impartiality matter here - not external, oft-venomous websites on the subject. Here is one example of devious citing presently in the Wikipedia article:
In 1949, idols of Lord Ram appeared in the Babri Masjid miraculously. The semi-governmental Wakf Board, an Indian Muslim trust owned the land on which the mosque stood. Both Hindu and Muslim parties launch civil suits and the Indian government, declaring the site "disputed", locks the gates to the mosque.[3]
And here is the actual quotation from the cited source - BBC News:
1949: Idols of Lord Rama appear inside mosque allegedly placed there by Hindus. Muslims protest, and both parties file civil suits. The government proclaims the premises a disputed area and locks the gates.
I implore vigilant contributors to parse this entry and verify all citations. (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User: (and others?)[edit]

This article is biased. See also the similar Talk:Babri Mosque. A comparison of the viewpoints of both sides will confirm that the current version is biased. --Kdlb 10:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes the original is/was horribly biased. I've tried to shore it up by redoing the Top, and trying to set right some part of the rest. But I think the admin needs to put a Biased sign after the introduction. --Tigger69

Please be specific: what and where exactly is something disputed? I removed the sentence on buddhist viharas because it doesn't say which temples (is it really the Ram temple?), which author/books say this. Please give sources. One issue is the organization of the article. I think the information regarding history of the mosque 1528-1990s and the political debate should be in mosque article, but is not always clear.

I do not believe that this article is biased. How are you going to say a temple did not exist, when you cannot prove that it did not exist. How is a conqueror's Mosque worth more than a God's birthplace, it will never be. Its Ram's Birthplace, and please don't disrespect that. - Wish

The article IS biased. The archaeological evidence provided for the findings of the "Sanskrit", and therefore allegedly "Hindu", inscriptions was by a VHP and BJP organized and funded archaeological commission/ study. The idols and pillars were allegedly moved into the mosque by Hindu nationalists during Jawaharlal Nehru's government. There are letters to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh of that time written by Jawaharlal Nehru that express concern over the idols being moved into the mosque. He saw it as a potential threat to the nation's peace. THEREFORE, there is NO EVIDENCE, written or otherwise, that the mosque was created after destroying a Hindu temple. IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A HINDU TEMPLE, how the heck can YOU say there was one? THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE tells ME that it wasn't there. In fact, the actual "birthplace" is known to be a few kilometers away from the site of the mosque, as noted in several different versions of the Ramayana. The changes in the terrain and the distance from the river have all been accounted for. So just because Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya, doesn't mean the whole city can't have a mosque in it. And it's NOT a conqueror's mosque. It was a place of WORSHIP for ALLAH, which means GOD. So, God's birthplace is significant, but so is the MOSQUE. The whole tear-down of the mosque and the resulting riots were all a political move that used people's religion and beliefs solely for the benefit of BJP and its "father", the RSS. Or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (for people who don't know). And next time, please research your facts before trying to convince yourself or anyone else about an issue. India is a nation of pluralism. It includes many cultures and religions. That's how it's always been and that's how it always will be. So it's high time that people GET OVER THEMSELVES and stop getting manipulated into stupid political games. They don't care if you're a Muslim or a Hindu until they need you to do something for them. Open your eyes and look around. Learn the facts. Because everyone in the rest of the world, can see it. EXCEPT YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theintellect94 (talkcontribs) 22:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sankaracharya used force against Buddhist?[edit]

I moved this to discussion. Please provide sources for these claims, esp. that Shankara used force against Buddhists. The claim that it once was a Buddhist temple, (it may be correct or not-I don't know) also needs sources. (And which Buddhists are claiming this?)

Recently, Buddhists have jumped into the fray, claiming that the site was a Buddhist temple before being forcibly taken over by the Hindus from whom the Muslims forcibly took it over! Fantastic as it may seem, this claim is not so improbable, given that most of Gangetic India had converted to Buddhism and remained so for more than half a millenium, and that Adi Sankaracharya who restored Hinduism, is known to have used force at several places against the Buddhist and Jains, regarded as heretics from Hinduism by orthodox Hindus. --Alexeifjodor 10:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the claim that there was a Buddhist temple on the site was initially made by members of the Muslim community attempting to discredit Hindu claims to the temple site- they maintained that the previous Buddhist temple had been destroyed by Hindus to build their temple, but that now the Hindus were crying foul that the Muslims had done the same. Later, at least one leader of a 'scheduled caste' organization who was a Buddhist convert staked a claim on behalf of Buddhists, on the basis of historical accounts of Buddhist temples (link here). These claims seem to have been abandoned following the archaeological investigation, which found no identifiably Buddhist artifacts. --Clay Collier 12:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ram as God[edit]

"I as a Hindu would know. I have never heard or seen anyone praying to Ram."

Then you must'nt have noticed that every second temple in north India seems to have idols of Ram, Laksman and Sita.

Also, Rama, Lakshmana etc are used instead to Ram as it is an accurate translation of the sanskrit terms. Ram is merely the phonetic version.

I don't want you to take this as a personal attack, but it's hard for me to tell that you're a Hindu from your words. And here's why: Rama(and this is the way many people pronounce it, especially Southern Indians) is one of the most popular Hindu deities. It's fair to say that Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas, emphasizing that Ram is the supreme lord, is one of the most widely read religious texts in Upper India. Also, the biggest Vaishnava sampradaya in upper India is the Ramanandi Panth, in which the most important deity is Sita Ram. Now, there are sects within Hinduism that do not emphasize the worship of Ram, and perhaps you are a member of such a sect. But for one to say that he or she is Hindu and has never heard or seen anyone worshipping Ram would make another Hindu raise an eyebrow pretty high. Be sure that it made me.

Me too. Rama rocks!--Dangerous-Boy 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This tigger kid is fighting a losing battle all those ASI people are idiots and this guy is right every person on this earth knows how Muslims have trampled upon all religions no body doubts there was a temple. What cheek this guy has ? Really!

Regarding that, the article refers to The Lord (Jai Shri Ram) as "King Ram" (Ram Naam Satya Hai). Is that an appropriate title? I mean, of course Shri Ram (Jai Shri Ram) was a King (of Ayodhya) but was His ceremonial title "Raja Ram" (Ram Naam Satya Hai) or "Samrat Rama" (Ram Naam Satya Hai)? I recall that the Valmiki Ramayana refers to Him as "Samrat" more often than "Raja", so it should be "Emperor Rama" (Ram naam Satya Hai), right? If there is any issue with this, we should change to the more neutral "Sir/Lord Ram" (Jai Shri Ram). Tell me what you think.(Pusyamitra Sunga 04:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC))


thought that compiling a "good" collection of sources would be a one way to start improving this article. Doldrums 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • monograph discussing historical evidence for existence of the Rama temple.

The article is NOT biased. Clear Evidences from Archiolological Survay of India are given.[edit]

If you read the article properly, and related evidences, it makes one clear that it is not biased. findings of inscriptions, yaksha idol and pillors clearly shows that the mosque was created on the destructed temple. Uday 13:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's Archaeological Survey** Second, the article IS biased. The archaeological evidence provided for the findings of the inscriptions was by a VHP and BJP organized and funded archaeological commission/ study. The OFFICIAL Archaeological Association of India could not find ANY evidence of temple or anything else for that matter. The idols and pillars were allegedly moved into the mosque by Hindu nationalists during Jawaharlal Nehru's government. There are letters to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh of that time written by Jawaharlal Nehru that express concern over the idols being moved into the mosque. He saw it as a potential threat to the nation's peace. THEREFORE, there is NO EVIDENCE, written or otherwise, that the mosque was created after destroying a Hindu temple. In fact, the actual "birthplace" is known to be a few kilometers away from the site, as noted in several different versions of the Ramayana. The changes in the terrain and the distance from the river have all been accounted for. The whole tear-down of the mosque and the resulting riots were all a political move that used people's religion and beliefs solely for the benefit of BJP and its "father", the RSS. Or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (for people who don't know). And next time, please research your facts before trying to convince yourself or anyone else about an issue. India is a nation of pluralism. It includes many cultures and religions. That's how it's always been and that's how it always will be. So it's high time that people GET OVER THEMSELVES and stop getting manipulated into stupid political games. They don't care if you're a Muslim or a Hindu until they need you to do something for them. Open your eyes and look around. Learn the facts. Because everyone in the rest of the world, can see it.

Marxist references[edit]

The article mentions "marxist" historians several times. Is there any reason for this, or is it merely pejorative? Garrettcobb 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Marxist historian is mentioned because maybe they are marxist and biased historians, who do research to support political purposes. Hikingdom 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Marxist historians are well known in India. Read Tom Bottomore: Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell, Oxford 1988, entry “Hinduism”. It describes Romila Thapar as a Marxist historian.
This article could use a once over from any non-religious person, Marxist or not.


The page definately needs a "Muslim" point of view (esp. Literary sources). It is, for the most part, a onesided Bajrang Dal/VHP endoctrined article

Its not a full Hindutva article, unless you mean to say the facts are biased. Lots of Muslim Historians are represented. Its hard to deny the facts. Bakaman%% 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Muslim POV is there is the Babri Mosque article.Netaji 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Removed entire section. VHP propaganda does not find place on this site. The disputed temple must be treated as such atleast till the Supreme Court gives its verdict.

A suggestion: revert but change description keeping a NPOV

Removed "Literary Sources" and "Some results.."[edit]

Literary Sources[edit]

This section is a copy-paste from one pro-Hindu book. Content is unverifiable and has been moved to Harsh Narain's entry.Eggman64 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The section seems rather copy and paste from original sources, it cites original work like Mirza Jain, an Islamist. Why should the content be unverifiable if it is sourced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msiev (talkcontribs) 14:57, May 30, 2006.Msiev

Yep I've changed it to a NPOV stance because I feel, Muslim ideas are sorely limited. Also, H. Narain's book cannot be verified online, hence it needs to be moved out as it is not verifiable See> [dubious ]Eggman64 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, your argument is indeed dubious. Only online Internet sources can be cited??? This sounds like bookphobia to me. And most of the content in the literary section has as reference not Harsh Narain if you read the article. --Msiev 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some results...[edit]

This biased and pro Hindu rhetoric need not be "information" on an encyclopedia. It is truly Hindutva/VHP propaganda. No "claims" should be included in an entry on Lord Rama's birth. Why not create an alternate one hereEggman64 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC) edits and's vandalism[edit]

The edits by in this aricle and the Babri mosque article used phrases like: The media is projecting only the Nazi view-point...And these Nazis are the very people who often boast that "judiciary is the only hope of India".

His edits also talked about offtopic allegations like about the Taj Mahal, needs to be sourced and npov'ed. A large section is excerpted from KP Prakasam Ayodhya:Questions of History which could be a copyright violation. I'm adding a clean up tag to the article. edits and's vandalism[edit]

Rather yours is a vandalism.Claims on Taj Mahal and other Muslim monuments form the environment in which the Hindutva campaign is moving the Indian society.See for instance

This is not the Taj Mahal article. --Msiev 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

factual Accuracy additions[edit]

Some authors have simply added Factual errors flags without mentioning why..I believe that at this point both the views are accounted.To make this article balanced , I sugest it point separately what the Hindu parties and Muslim partries admit rather than imposing them with a cut and paste idea version.

The tags have been added by me on request by Wiki alf the admin. If you'd atleast see the time and date, you'd realise that I havent had time enough to comment here. Eggman64 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Factual error templates[edit]

Factual accuracy disputed tags have been added to Findings and Inscriptions sections of the 2003 ASI Report section of the article due to lack of cited/verified sources. These are up for deletion unless Internet verifiable sources can be provided. Also, sources MUST be provided by note-worthy news magaize/sites (eg. Outlook, India Today, Rediff News, Times of India). These sections are particularly volatile and hence their factual accuracy is immensely important. Eggman64 17:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Factual accuracy on Inscriptions.
Why is there a "citation needed" just after the citation (Puratattva, No. 23 (1992-3), pp. 35 ff.)? Please don't say because it is not online. The whole inscriptions section is about this.
  • Factual accuracy on "Findings"
The reference for this must be the ASI report. Because the reference must be the ASI report, the reference is in theory okay. If there are doubts about the accuracy, I guess the only thing one can do is to read the original report and compare. But it should be written in plain text, not like it is now, and made a bit shorter.
  • Factual accuracy in Literary sources section
Please mention which parts are disputed in the section.
  • Split section into a new article entitled 2003 ASI Report. I don't think it is necessary, but I'm also not against moving it because it is large. If moving it, why not to Archaeology in Ayodhya or Archaeology of the Babri Masjid/ Ram Janmabhoomi site.
  • Split into a new article entitled Harsh Narain's The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute.
Certainly not with this title, as most of the text has other references. --Msiev 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks Msiev for handling this democratically and not blatantly removing the templates.
Secondly, thanks for helping out with the referncing...much appreciated.
  • Inscriptions..... Is "Puratattva" a book by Ajay Mitra Shastri? And YES an internet source is essential. It would be easy for anyone (read pro-Muslims) to quote a random/make-believe book written by a make believe author. An article like this must have "accessible" information, ie accessible to all.
Search the web for Puratattva. It is an archaeological journal. By Wikipedia standards, sources must not be online. You might not know this, but printed books are valid sources. Of course, the book must also exist. --Msiev 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Findings...Here you are correct. It must be referenced, as you said. It also needs to be concised and a lengthier version put on another page.
I removed it. It was a copyright violation. --Msiev 15:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Literary sources.... I believe this section to be obscenely pro Hindu. Also it contains sources from a single literary source, viz H Narain. Again it would be wise to concise this section, add Internet references and add other literary sources (of varied and concise opinion). I do believe that the title of the section is also wrong (although I named it so). An encyclopedia must give state its facts and these must be referncesd. Hwo this section can be aptly changed or reworked is confusing though (and not of prime importance)
If you read the section, Harsh Narain is mentioned at the beginning, but most of the section does not use Harsh Narain as a (direct) refererence. If it must be moved, then rather to something like "Ayodhya in literature". But if we move this section to another article, the Ram Janmobhoomi will become quite small. Most of the section only quotes the relevant passages. If there are other relevant quotes, you may quote them. --Msiev 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, after reading this section, I ask myself what is so "obscenely pro Hindu" in this section? Is it that almost only British people and Muslims are quoted, and not Hindus? Is that so obscenely pro Hindu? Or is it history as written by Muslims that is so obscenely pro Hindu? Or that earlier historical sources do not agree with post-1990 claims? What exactly is so obscenely pro Hindu?--Msiev 09:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Split into 2003 ASI Report... This is essential. After all this page is about Lord Rama's Birthplace. Why must something of such great religious significance have more refernces to destruction and devastation leaves me in confusion. Also the article is long (55 kb) and the details of the ASI report take up much of this space. It is not easy reading by any means. It would be viable to reduce all sections on the report and link a main article. I agree that 'Archaeology in Ayodhya' or 'Archaeology of the Babri Masjid/ Ram Janmabhoomi site' are better names. They would be suitable as well. Redirect pages would be needed as well.
The article is about the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, rather than about about Rama's birthplace.--Msiev 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Split into Harsh Narain's book article ....I believe we can directly link this to his page and create a separate section there (albeit a lengthier one)
Eggman64 10:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Marxist and dispute after 1990[edit]

  • The main players in the Ayodhya debate were on one side the Mulim and Marxist historians. Many of the prominent figures were Marxist historians, such as Romila Thapar and many others. It should be noted somewhere.
  • It was commonly believed until about 1990 that an ancient Ram Janmabhoomi temple was demolished and replaced with the Babri Mosque which stood on the site until 1992. The Encyclopædia Britannica of 1989 reported that the Babri Mosque stood "on a site traditionally identified" as an earlier temple dedicated to Rama's birthplace.
This is a fact. “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple”, according to the 1989 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, entry “Ayodhya”. If there is a source that says something else, include it in the article.--Msiev 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This was again changed. It is a fact that there was a consensus before 1990 that the Babri Masjid stood on an ancient Rama temple. If this is disputed, include a source that says otherwise in the article. --Msiev 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

- - *The controversy started in those years and hence no comments were recorded on whether the temple existed there or not..the best sources to cite would therefore be the comments of the court which was deciding the case.When you cite consensus who do you include.Did Muslims agree Rama was born there or did the other university Historians admit that he was indeed born there and a temple was razed.You have construed the silence of historians as an admission to the Hindu claims? - - I was just checking The Week online and it says if ASI's version is to be believed there was a Shaiva temple there and not Vaishnav.So that means Rama, a Vishnu avatar was nowhere in the picture...

Before 1990, the view did exist that the mosque stood on an ancient temple. The view that this is not true only exists since the early 1990s. --Msiev 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This view still exists but among the Hindus as it did before.What is so special in noting it here?Does it add any weight to the story?

RAMA Birth[edit]

Why not create an additional topic Rama's birth where this issue can be addressed.This is an encyclopedia not based on Brittanica and whatever is said there is not the final word on the topic.The cases are still pending in Indian courts where Hindu parties have to prove that a temple commemorating Ram's birth was standing there.When the courts have not given their verdict .How can you write that here.

We can also report the opinion of the courts. If we report the opinion of the courts, whatever it is, does not mean that other opinions are not mentioned.

Msiev edits[edit]

I have reasons to believe that Msiev's edits are being done to present a single sided version of the story.The article is being made soft towards the VHP,Bajrang Dal and Hindutva stand.His writings give an impression that there certainly existed a Rama temple and that Rama was born there .When this is a question sub-judice.OK to present the Hindu view but mark it as Hindu view not that of an independent observer.

I only tried to npov'ize the edits by user: But it was probably a mistake to try to npov'ize his edits. They should be left as they are, so people will easier recognize it as the anti-scientific polemics that they are. The article should not say that there was a Rama temple, but it should present all the relevant facts and data. --Msiev 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links to biased sites[edit]

I propose a removal of all links to etc, that are withen the sections except from the External links section. Eggman64 10:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost every site in this debate will be a biased one. It depends on what is cited, maybe some of them should be removed. --Msiev 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sign your posts on talk pages for meaningful and serious discussions. - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 11:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ganga and Msiev - Beneath this garb you intend to remove a News Site - Milligazette when it is already known that VHP site is a propoganda one
Thanks for signing Eggman64 but no thanks for later changing time of signing from 12:49 to 10.49. Propaganda, Propaganda everywhere, even here. Please stop making such reverts and propaganda additions in article. - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha, you assume too much. I changed the time of signing to the time when the post was made, so as to avoid confusion. I've signed most of my posts but oversight caught me there. Eggman64 13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so you made the post exactly 2 hours earlier than that. Lol! - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Propaganda, Propaganda everywhere, even here. Please stop making such reverts and propaganda additions in article. Are you talking to yourself?? Because I sure am hoping so. With a name like Holy Gnges.. (and guaging for the edits you've made) you seem to be the propaganda emitting machine.Eggman64 13:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Your additions and reverts are not based on refrences and logical reasons, so you are making propaganda without any base. Either show some logics, or stop reverting. - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you are offended. I assure you that I am neither HINDU nor MUSLIM although I am INDIAN (hence neutral). I am proud of my people but sorry, that a significant number can be so intolerant. I have no vendetta against you. However, if you represent the RSS or VHP then I do. Its easy to accuse people of illogical behaviour, but please if you wish to do so, back it up. I have remained diplomatic and Msiev has changed his ways as well. This issue is not an easy one and you must remmber that people have died and sentiments were hurt. here is a list of my edits. Go through them and then accuse me of being "propaganda" (and please use a dictionary)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
All five show the work I did on the refernces section
[6] This one is a major revamp of the Backgroud section that I made yesterday. It is one of the few textual based edits. I have and will always maintain neutrality. Your apoligy is accepted. Eggman64 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I find this sadly ironic when compared to this. I would love for you set away the hypocrisy and see that your behaviour has only served to lower the respect you gained for the effort put in (by you) on other Hinduism articles. Its sad that a religion so accepting and integrating can turn so wildly away from its "core concepts". I only request you to try and uncloud your vision before hitting the keys to reply.Eggman64 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, i don't understand why you are explaining all this to me. I have not written this article. I am here to edit and to make it impartial. Please check my additions and reverts. I have made major edits only in Temple reconstruction and Flaws in ASI report sections. In "Flaws in ASI report" section i have only added another side of view with source to present both sides equally and wrt to my other edit, now you yourself agree that picture should get a place. I only object to major reversions and additions which are without sources and without disscussion on talk page. So, I seriously request you to try and uncloud your vision before hitting the keys to reply. Regards - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Temple Picture[edit]

Please explain why there shuld be a pic of the "proposed" Ram temple? Until the SC psses a verdict allowing for the construction to be completed it finds no place here. What is welcome is a picture of the partially completed temple.13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

SC has not stopped construction of this temple at various sites and therefor SC has no problem with this. Today this is a reality and a fact that more than 50% construction of Ram Janmbhoomi temple based on this model has already been completed. So, In Ram janmbhoomi temple reconstruction section of Ram janmabhoomi article, this picture has valid reasons to find place. - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 13:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Allright I agree that the pic of the"proposed" temple can be placed there. Please ensure that the wording used is neutral. Eggman64 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing your mind and supporting my earlier revert. Regards - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Temple Picture Copyright violation[edit]

This picture comes from VHP site and is possibly a copyright violation.

Citing Sources[edit]

Please make sure that "literary sources" are changed to <book> cited by <HArsh Narain> Eggman64 15:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting contents on talk pages[edit]

I dont see a reason why POVs on talk pages should be removed.I have seen many instances on this page .Why?


Till courts verdict it should be contrcution and not reconstruction.Secondly, if Ram temple reconstruction is mentioned why not mention what the otyher party has done to reconstruct the mosque.

Shah Bano[edit]

The Shah Bano affair was mentioned in more details in one previous edit and while it is good to understand that Hindus felt offended , there is the other side to it - it was taken by Hindu parties badly while Muslims felt it as an interference in their rights as both the aggrieved parties in this case were Muslims and it changed the provisions of Muslim personal law having no bearing on the Hindus.

Last note on the way edits are done[edit]

There are certain people who reflect a particular viewpoint on the edit .They begin with placing a small icon on NPOV and then gradually start changing the story . So after a few more days it reflects their POV.Not unlike this Ayodhya affair itself - place an idol - claim a Chabootra (platform) and then claim the entire monument.

I agree with your views and have seen this happening explictly in the article. I request that the "literary sources" section be revamped as I feel it is terribly biased. PS. Please sign your comments and disregard flak from Holy Ganga.
Eggman64 11:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not flak but only a suggestion for productive and serious discussions on talk pages. For more see: Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Signing your posts on talk pages and other discourse (but not on articles) is good etiquette. Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing as it helps other users to understand the progress and evolution of a work and signatures allow people to easily identify the author of a comment.
Regards - Holy Ganga talk India flag 300.png 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica[edit]

This citation is false. There is no edition published in 1989.Eggman64 12:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

According to whom? I'm adding a more precise reference to the article. --Msiev 08:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There was no 1986 edition either....Don't be lazy, read the Encyclopædia Britannica.
Don't be lazy indeed, read the Encyclopædia Britannica, and not only its wikipedia article. It is in the 15th edition, and the year 1986 is the year that is in my version of the Encyclopædia Britannica. --Msiev 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Link titles[edit]

Link titles like "Pro-Muslim", "pro-hindu", Marxist, Indian secular and so on are very unusual for wikipedia. User: even added link titles like "Jewish" to links without any reason. It only hints at this user's antisemitism? --Msiev 10:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If there has been a consensus that temple exisited then why does AIBMAC still continue with the case (since 1949) when it explicitly says it will give away the monument if proven temple existed there..Hindu parties can simply show them that they have changed stance only from 1990 onwards..

I believe qualification of the links is necessary as most of them are biased from one or other POV.

The user is not Antisemitic but he can not accept biased ideas presented by Islamophobes including Zionists like Stephen Knapp whose sole aim is to divide the Indian society. 11:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Knapp is a 'Zionist'. Sure, sure, blame it all on those pesky 'Zionists' (i.e Jews). Good old 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'.How typical.Anti-Semitic bigotry at its finest right here.(Pusyamitra Sunga 03:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC))
Sorry Netaji - Pussyamitra - The correct link for Zionism is [7]
Learn history. Anti-Semites began their propaganda with the Protocols. Anti-Semitic muslims should not be encouraged. Just mocked & sent on their way. They have lost, Zionism and Israel have won. BWAHAHAHA! (Pusyamitra Sunga 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC))


Why do Hindus need foreigners like Koenraad Elst and Stephen Knapp represent their case..should they know better than Indians?

Because leftist anti-hindus and their muslim bedfellows use foreigners like Michael Witzel and various Christian-Sympathetic pseudoscholars to defame Hindus as part of the 'white man is always right' zeitgeist in India. Important to point that some elements of western scholarship are not so racist, and neutral scholarship, dwindling as it may be, still exists and needs to be documented. Plus, the communist-sympathizing congress government and their leftist buddies in Indian academia are rapidly making neutral scholarship of Indian studies increasingly difficult, including restricting access to historical documentation, and putting in a lot of revisionist garbage about the 'greatness' os Stalinist Russia and whitewashing the holodomor in textbooks and frauulent research papers, for instance, as well as whitewashing the Islamic genocide of Hindus and Sikhs in India.(Pusyamitra Sunga 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC))
Actually, the defenders of Indian history (not Witzel gang but Elst's homies) are the growing flock as more and more Indians see the lies the textbooks tell.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement[edit]

The article states :

"The Ayodhya of Ram is believed to have existed in the Treta Yuga of the Hindu calendar, about 900,000 years ago to 1.3 Millions of years ago."

That is an atrociously inaccurate statement. Please refer for timeline of human evolution and edit/omit that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree and the removed statement. Even the reference to Hindu mythology where Treta Yuga is not reliable since it is from a person who is critical to hindu POV192.11.225.116 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Small edit to intro[edit]

I changed the first sentence of this article- the part about Rama being a 'historical figure'. I've replaced it with 'major figure in Indian mythology. The subsequent sentence is also changed accordingly.Barnikel (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Barnikel

Like the other articles regarding the Ayodhya Debate...[edit]

This one has multiple duplicates because each viewpoint wants to write its own history. This just makes the article a mess. There needs to be one history and then one section to refute. Mdw0 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

I tagged this article for POV, because of the map given in the infobox. It shows the location of a "ram temple" at Ayodhya, which is a clear violation of NPOV, since all that exists at this point is a minor shrine, and the supposed ruins of the temple. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix this issue, but the tag should remain till a more factual map is in place. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And I removed it, what makes it non-neutral? -sarvajna (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
It is also the site of the mosque, that's what makes it non-neutral. The map is giving undue weight to the temple. Given the importance of the Mosque in the whole dispute, it merits a tag. I would have tagged the picture itself, but I don't think that is possible. Otherwise, fix the problem, I have no issues with that, I don't have the ability to do it myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There is any mosque now? You might be involved in 3 rr. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
1) You are right, I am in technical violation of 3RR, and therefore self-reverted my last edit. However, since the first two of those were for edits that were distinct from the current argument, and are no longer really in dispute, I don't think I am violating its spirit.
2) Since the topic was still being discussed here, Sarvajna should not have removed the tag. If either of you have any sense of courtesy, you will replace it now, because:
3) The article is about the site/piece of land, which once contained a mosque, as well as supposedly a temple. Therefore, an infobox talking only about a temple is not NPOV. Just to be clear, an infobox about a Mosque on this page would be equally problematic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is correct, but I have only asked, that if there is still any mosque, daily prayers? If there are, then only it will be notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)The article is about the Hindu temple and hence it uses Template:Infobox temple. Had it been about the once-standing mosque, we would have used the Template:Infobox mosque. And hey, the mosque already has it's own article at Babri Mosque which has that infobox and thats sufficient enough. Your claim of calling the whole article non-neutral for this reason is absurd. If you have anything more, go on here. Till then i see no reason to have meaningless tags on top of article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If the article had been about the temple, I would not have such a problem. The article is NOT about the semi-historical temple; it is about the SITE. So, the Hindu temple infobox is incorrect. Moreover, I am not calling the whole article anything. The templates are used to draw attention to problems that need fixing, which is exactly the intent here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If the Hindu temple template is replaced with the infobox for ancient sites, and the "Ram Temple" on the map is changed to "Ram Janmabhoomi", I would drop the whole matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And then if you already have a probable solution then without even trying that why were you edit warring on sticking up a big orange tag which reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed."? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I did not "already" have a solution; the tag had been there six weeks before this argument. Second, I was looking for a solution; this particular argument prompted me to look intensively, and I found one. I did not edit war over the template itself; I reverted that exactly once. I would replace the template now, but I would technically violate 3RR. If nobody does it before then, I will replace it tomorrow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Besides, when I point out a possible solution, why are you coming to the TP to nag me about it, instead of simply implementing it? You know I could be accused of edit warring if I did it myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


BM, as of now, there is not one rigorous source saying that Ram WAS born at that exact spot, so we cannot present it as fact, only as belief. Provide a source, then we will change it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If not here, where he was born then? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That is a silly question. I don't know, and what I think doesn't matter. Go read WP:OR. All we are supposed to do, is to collect and summarize things from reliable sources. If no such sources exist, then we cannot present something as fact. And please don't start talking about how Wikipedia says Jesus was born in Bethlehem; because Jesus is a much more recent figure, lots more data exist. I repeat, go find sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok i have changed it to "regarded", instead. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
And I reverted it, because that is ungrammatical. What is your problem with "believed"? It is a neutral word, it doesn't imply something is false. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree, "believe" should be good enough.-sarvajna (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger[edit]

It is proposed that this article be merged into Babri Masjid. Please see the relevant discussion at Talk:Babri Masjid#Proposed merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue Archaeology[edit]

There is far too much weight given to the archaeology of the site, particularly to tiffenthaler, who does not qualify as a scholarly source, and isn't really archaeology anyway. I intend to fix this. Contemporary archaeology might be more appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any real archaeology discussed in that section. This page is in poor shape and there isn't much interest in it any more. I think we should merge it into Ayodhya dispute. What we really need is a page on the Rama Janmabhoomi movement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to propose a merger, but the Hindutva brigade will show up in force, and the proposal is not going to fly. You know that, and I know that. So I think it may be more worthwhile to at least fix this page, which we can do, since none of them are actually capable of creating sourced content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is too much given to archaelogy. Archaeology is a very important part of the conflict, which is also about the question if a temple existed at the site or not. If there is too much archaeology related information, it can be merged into the Archaeology article.--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat. There is no archaeology in this article. I have renamed that section. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, when I titled this section, I was referring to the section title of the article, not to the studies of the site itself. Sure, archaeology is important, but the stuff in the article is not scholarly, and not archaeological, which is why it must be trimmed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)