Talk:Babri Masjid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Please check the images posted on this article. Several of these are images of some other monuments and not the Babari masjid - especially the images of the interior. I had visited Babari Masjid in 1991 with my family. The interiors of the monument were absolutely plain, with no carvings or inscriptions in Arabic. Also, it was covered in white plaster, with no ornate decorations of any sort. Please verify the images with Archaeological Survey of India or some other reliable sources rather than this so called reuters reporter, which I am sure is a fake. Let us not distort the facts while presenting the case in such a sensitive debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.125.3 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sentence deleted

I took this sentence out because it was obviously just added by someone later since the issue is discussed in the second paragraph with a more nuetral POV. "It was constructed by destroying the original Ram temple in Ayodhyaya"

I do not understand why there is all this hatred. Hindus and Mulims have lived together in peace for centuries. Why should some radicals disrupt this peace. It doesnt matter where the Babri Masjid site was for Hindus or Muslims. Just build a temple and a mosque there, and problem will be solved. Do not let communal differences bring down India.

                The destruction signifies more than hatred. It shows that after 900 years of humiliation under Muslims, Hindus are finally taking a stand. Jai Hind! The Jews should follow our example, and deal with the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the same way.

Koenraad Elst

Whoever he is - He is the darling of Hindutva Brigade and their revisionist agenda.So his views should be taken with a pinch...oh sorry !!!a handful of salt.

One does not know of him much.May be he is a paid mercenary for Hindutva cause.

lol...paid mercenary..yeah right...should I remind you that the Islamic charities pay for terrorists...a very peaceful and noble cause(I'm being sarcastic)....there are many nationalists who stick to a cause by heart and pride, not money.

I won't take his views into a neutral article without talking of his Hindutva allegiance.Ya- One thing we should make a difference between the Hinduism practiced by millions of moderate Indians and the Hindutva which is a Supremacist movement not unlike the British National Party

I can say the same thing about Marxist Leninist Romila Thapar, that she is paid by western leftists academics to denigrate Hindus as part of a communist agenda. By all means, critically analyze Elst's work, bearing in mind that he is a self-professed Christian, not a Hindu at all. Neither is Daniel Pipes, who is devoutly Jewish, and has supported the Ramjanmabhoomi cause. You have no financial records that Hindutva advocates pay him any money, whereas there is proof that Islamic orgs in India get money to & from terrorist orgs like Hezbollah and Lashkar-e-Toiba and CAIR. The fact is that muslim organizations have touted more hate speech against Hindus on the internet than Hindus have against muslims. Muslims also tout hate-speech against Jews (anti-semitism) and Zionism (anti-Zionism, basically a polite form of anti-semitism) on mainstream newspapers such as al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera. Read the report on anti-semitism in the muslim world by the Anti-Defamation League (www.adl.org).(Netaji 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

• Oh, Sometimes ago we heard that Muslims organisations pay the terrorists ..New development they are themselves being financed by terrorists...Good..The world is round.Boss , you are a Gem Lkadvani 00:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Money flows both ways, and my claims are backed by American guns and the American Army, the one true force of democracy left in the world. Care to tustle with that, bud? Do you know what Americans do to terrorist sympathizers? Believe me, you wouldn't want to be one then. (Netaji 00:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC))
    • Assertions , Mr. Watson and loud at that should be attached with evidence which you seem not to be showing.
      • Just do a simple google search on CAIR.(Pusyamitra Sunga 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC))
    • Licking US a** - Since when Sangh Parivar get US as its friend?Check the US administrations report on religious rights in India and you will be please to know how critical they are of killings and torture of missionaries.

       why should the Indian gov't protect missionaries? For breaking the law? Religious conversion is against the law in many states..whether you agree with it or not...its the law...If the missionaries break it, do they deserve protection?

• • • • And check out the "national prayer day" in the US in 2001, which started with a Hindu pandit's prayer. They don't even do that in the useless Bolshie sh*thole that is the Indian Parliament. The US govt said all those things to mollycoddle the muslims, barely choking on their own words in the process. Politics is different from ideology. And yes, America is the one true democracy left in the world, and they'll kick your pinko a**es right over the moon. Comrade.(Pusyamitra Sunga 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC))
      • And yes, we have many friends among Americans. Neo-Conservative Jews, USINPAC, AIPAC, the India Caucus of the US Congress, to name just a few. Too Bad, Comrade. Now go to Afghanistan and whine to Osama bin-C**kf**r.(Pusyamitra Sunga 22:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

A short summary of my recent edits

I have not committed vandalism. I now provide reasons for my edits below: No, I put the muslim POV below the hindu one. This is so because the muslim pov starts out by criticizing the hindu POV, thus making it logically inconsistent for the muslim one to come first. Plus, the muslim POV part was strife with hate-speech against hindus and unsubstantiated, as well as unreferences stuff, which I have removed. The bit I have added is well-references from an article written by Koenraad Elst, who is neither Indian nor Hindu, but is a Belgian scholar of Indian studies. For instance:

"They say that it prove that the Hindu militants believe in "bloodshed and manslaughter" as a means to achieve their goals"

is unsubstantiated. Hindutva charter clearly states "Harm no creature, but if they attack you, fight back"

"since the killing of Sikhs after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi"

Is irrelevant, since the Sikh riots were perpetrated by Congress sympathizers, and has nothing to do with the VHP.

"gangs of karsevaks"

Is biased, kar-sevaks don't form gangs. How'd you like it if someone said "gangs of Hamas members"? :"shouting 'Jai Shri Ram'"

Is irrelevant. So they were shouting stuff. Not unlike "Allahu-Akbar", is it?

These communities speak of how the Muslims of the town supplied the wood used to build the temples of the Hindus and grew flowers to string around the necks of the gods and goddesses (Dutas and Devis)."

Yeah, right. And I'm a 23000-year old Buddhist Vampire. Show proof.

"Secondly, this idea of relocating could be considered only in the case of grave necessity and not the whims and fancies of any community that has hegemonous mentality and claims from three to thirty thousands more mosques as being built on destroyed Hindu temples."

Is obvious POV

"fantasize on other Muslim heritage coming up with a story on birth of their dieties, places of their marriage or their death and claim those Muslim monuments as their own."

Bad grammar. I prefer grammatically correct hate-speech, don't you? There is absolutely no proof of this allegation specifically. Maybe in a general sense, but the specificity is wrong, POV, biased, and hate-speech against Hindus. Notice that there is no hate-speech against muslims in my edits.

Please view these woth an open neutral mind. After all, even a devout muslim like Abu Sina could criticize aspects of his religion and not get beheaded, right? (Netaji 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

• • • Hi Boss - Even though it is a bit direct - this paragraph was under "Muslim view of the history" and not shown as a neutral observation so there is no point in deleting that.Maybe it is correct , maybe wrong but it is gives the other perspective.
    • And by the way - You have done far more hate speech towards Muslims and their religion in the Talk page here
      • I have directed hate-speech against terrorists, not muslims. I hate terrorists, true. Plus, none of that has entered the article. The article should be NPOV. The talk pages are fair game. Muslims have retaliated with virulent hate-speech also. The difference is that they have done so IN THE ARTICLE, which violates NPOV policy. Muslims are more than welcome to vent their frustrations by releasing all their hate for Hindus here in the talk page (they already have). The fact is that muslim organizations have touted more hate speech against Hindus on the internet than Hindus have against muslims. Muslims also tout hate-speech against Jews (anti-semitism) and Zionism (anti-Zionism, basically a polite form of anti-semitism) on mainstream newspapers such as al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera. Read the report on anti-semitism in the muslim world by the Anti-Defamation League (www.adl.org). By the way, I have commented favorably on the bit about archiecture of the former babri Masjid. I wouldn;t do that if I ws a muslim hater, would I?
      • Plus, I did not delete the paragraph, nor any pertinent information. I got rid of the hate-speech, andmove the paragraph below for logical consistency. Big difference(Netaji 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC))
      • "A bit direct?" That's all you have to say to outright mullah-speech? They might as well wield Qurans and kalashnokovs right in front of wikimedia headquarters!(Netaji 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

=Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhe Wassalam) and Babri Mosque

I've heard this claim about that the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) to preach to India, and they found traces of his hair from his head. This can be from an authentic source (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud etc.. ) or it can be a forgery hadith. I'm not too sure about this, can someone research this up? Is there any authentic source?

• • • Hi,The details of prophet's daily life are well recorded in history and there is no mention whatsoever of him visiting India at all.

• • • Thanks the gods for that. We never needed pedophiles anyway (Netaji 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)).netaji and subhash bose u better fear god
      • Ya, Netaji, We accept Polyandry in India...and sometimes our Yagnas require women copulate with horses
      • Interesting, it seems you have read THE SATANIC VERSES. The freedom-of-expression-loving Hindus should lobby to get the book un-banned. It seems that Congress was foolish enough to increase the book's popularity by banning it. Such fools socialists can be.
        • Pity for muslims there aren't more self-hating Hindus like yourself. Then we'd have an Islamic theocracy in India already, and all our throats would have been slit. (Netaji 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC))
    • I remember two phrases that aptly describe the above situation - "Calling a spade a spade" and "those who live in glass houses should.....you know the rest.
      • Yes, call a spade a spade. A terrorist a terrorist. Exactly what Daniel Pipes does.
      • Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror (cast into the heart of the infidel). The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.'"(Netaji 02:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC))
        • [The ears a Shudra who listens intentionally when the Veda is being recited are to be filled with molten lead; his tongue is to be cut out if he recite it; his body is to be split in twain if he preserve it in his memory. [Quoted in Vedãnta Sûtras, I, 3, by both Shankarãchãrya and Rãmanujãchãrya as valid]. ]

62.189.60.30 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • Fair enough. In a democracy like India, the state does not shoot you, hang you, or chop your hand off for saying that. Try and say the same for a critic of Islam in Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. (Pusyamitra Sunga 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC))
            • • Oh, and guess what bubba? I AM A SHUDRA (well, a Telu, which is close enough) and I have read the Rigveda front-to-back (in school as well as at home by my Dwivedi-Brahmin Sanskrit teacher). Hang on, lemme check my ears ... Nope. No molten lead, my hands are still here, and my tongue is still in me. Now let's look at muslims and how many sites they bombed in recent memory, shall we?(Pusyamitra Sunga 07:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

• • • • • Pussymitra aka Netaji - seems to value Indian democrarcy - he should know that it is democracy because it is secular.Had it been a Hindutva branded it should not have been different to Afghanistan under Taliban - Gujarat is a case in point.

Muslims say the same thing about Israel and they're all lies. Gujarat is the Hindu Israel. It is the one place where Hindus are safe at last, and we did it just like the Israelis crushed the al-Aqsa intifida against the Paagal-stinian terrorists. Think we can be stopped? Think again, brother. We will forever remain a democracy, but we will also be a Hindu Rashtra, without the pseudosecularist vote-bank politics of the liberal left, or their pandering to terrorists who attack us with boulders and bombs, and Dalit Supremacists who steal our jobs using quotas and spread hate against their own people.(Pusyamitra Sunga 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

He should thank the secular ethos..that allowed him to read RigVeda back to back and hark of the Hindu Glory

Shivaji was not a Brahmin. He read all four Vedas. Rabindranath Tagore was not a Brahmin, yet he knew excellent Sanskrit. How does THAT gel with your lies, Shri "Advani" Jee? 'Secular ethos'. Yeah, right. LOL! What a joke! No Uniform Civil Code, special prefernce to Dalits and muslims. What secular ethos? Secuarism in India is a fraud.(Pusyamitra Sunga 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

THe ideas expressed by him is similar to the generation of Communalists who are hell bent on their revisionist agenda

why have the lower Hindus created organisations which decry Hindu society why?

Why? I'll bloody tell you why. The same reason why muslims created hundreds of anti-semitic and anti-Hindu websites on the internet. Hatred, pure and simple. Specific to the dalit supremacists and their "Chamaar Nation" horsecrap, we're talking about Self-Hatred, such as a self loathing Hindu like yourself, bhai. A login of LK Advani and still a self-hating Hindu. What a tragedy you are. YOu want to hate us? go ahead, hate us. Theoughout the centuries we have been hated by muslims. Not a day has gone by when they didn;t digest their dinner without housting a few drinks and attacking Hindus on the streets, it gave meaning to so many of them...

Enjoy yourself. At this point we are sufficiently powerful and well-connected to not care if fringe element nutjobs hate us.

Here are some links for you. Now our enemies may quiver in fear in the face of our newfound ally:

http://peace.heebz.com/india.html http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10445

http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.16/living1.html http://www.indojudaic.com/index.htm http://www.hinduunity.org/jewsofindia.html http://www.indojudaic.com/Lecture_Topics/lecturehindujewish.html http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/Sharon_2003/sharon_000.htm http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper131.html

I'll say one thing. Your screed against your own people, this self-hatred that you ahow, is robably related more to your ignorance of Hinduism than anything else. Your misguided perception of muslims being some sort of 'opressed underclass' gels with the dialectic materialism of Karl Marx. Understand this, my friend. Secularism IS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR DEMOCRACY! USA and Israel have proved that. The world is shifting towards faith-based governments like neo-conservatives and Likud/Kadima . If Hindus don't do that, we will be wiped out by muslims in a massive genocide (think they'll spare you? Think again). Being a low caste hindu is way better then being a Dhimmi or Kaffir. Don;t believe me? Ask the Hindus presently being hunted to extinction in Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or a kashmiri pandit. Or the Ba'haii Jews assaulted and murdered on the streets of Tehran, or Christians in Saudi Arabia, or anyone who is not a muslim in an Islamic Country. (Pusyamitra Sunga 11:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

SUBHASH BOSE Edits

User Boss has added following personal POV while at the same time deleting reference to Gujarat Riots in a previous edit saying it was unrelated and a Leftist propoganda.

.....). However, most enquiry reports in India fail to satisfy all the parties.In retaliation, Muslim mafia, principally the D-Gang operated by Dawood Ibrahim Khaskar, the Konkanni Muslim and acolyte of former Mafia don Haji Mastan, staged a simultaneous, multiple bomb attacks in Bombay using RDX and whose toll is also not finally set. See 1993 Mumbai bombings.

Admin should keep an eye on his changes please.He should be made to cite mainstream media as an authentic source and not the Sangh Parivar

Rushdie 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins should also watch terrorist-sympathizers spreading hate on wikipedia. The Gujarat riots are a separate event, both in space and in time, and are only related to the great repatriation of the Ramjanmabhoomi through a leftist and/or islamofascist lens. Plus, the affiliations of Ibrahim with Islamic fundamentalists and their actions is extremely relevant to the article, as the Mumbai riots and subsequent terrorist bombings by muslims were a direct consequence of the great repatriation.

That having said, I'm glad you chose not to engage in a revert war, and extend to you my thanks. A revert war would be grossly unproductive. Thus, I'm prepared to read your POV with an open and neutral mind.

Mr Rushdie (an odd login, for Salman Rushdie was more critical of Islamic fundamentalism than Ali Sina) should know that no news media is completely objective, and ALL points of view must be presented without bias (I have not let my opinions taint the article so far). If you wish to present BBC links describing the timeline of the great repatriation, then you may. You may, of course, add the All India Babri Masjid committee. I will also add (with 3rd party information as support) that the Babri Masjid Committee has received monies from Saudi Sheiks connected to the bin-Laden family, as well as from Hezbollah, a cabal of mass murderers, and Lashkar-e-Toiba. I will be monitoring the article. If you choose to delete any NPOV sections and insert fundamentalist propaganda, I will be the first to know.(Netaji 11:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

• • • • OK, Young physicist - Gujarat was unrelated while Dawood Ibrahim is related to Babri issue.Alors! BBC is just another media with bias..taken..Could you elaborate your personal POV above with any newslink please (Non Hindutva).Fundamentalists of all hues get monies from somewhere and by the way..the VHP is raking good sums from UK and US [1].If Saudis finance the BMAC it is nothing great...(though one can question the basis of your facts)BMAC has not to date incited people to violence or hatred as the Sangh Parivar has been flagrantly doing.

Oh yes, I like Rushdie [2] Rushdie 11:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a strange sort of muslim. Didn't the Ayatollah pass a fatwa against him, demanding that all muslims (including you) kill him immediately? That's why I love Rushdie. He had balls of steel to stand up to Islam.(Netaji 00:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

• Yes, Dawood Ibrahim is related, and because he is a muslim. Islamic doctrine says that all muslims are obliged to attack anyone perceived as the 'enemies of Islam'. No such crap in any Hindu scripture. Thus, the actions of two independent events perpetrated by Hindus are unrelated, whereas that of muslims of the same denomination that are even peripherally connected to each other are important and need mentioning.

The BBC, like any media source, has bias in some form. However, like I said, you may put it in if you want WITHOUT DELETING ANYTHING. You think you're tough? You ain't seen nothin' yet bubba.

Plus, it's not just Saudis who finance BMAC, it's terrorists. There are financial links to the BMAC which, if the BMAC was in the US, would have the whole lot of them thrown in Guantanamo Bay. All muslims incite violence. When they read the Quaran it incites violence, because the Quran incites violence. The BMAC members read the Quran in their sessions, don't they? That's violence, right there. Now what? Are you going to bomb me for typing that? (Netaji 11:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

• • • I wont comment on the statements that you have marked - the reason you are on Wikipedia are all clear.However could you elaborate on the terrorism charges with a non Sangh site or article.

Rushdie 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please extend the same courtesy to yourself of I will write your own words "WITHOUT DELETING ANYTHING".

Rushdie 11:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's one, for starters. http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles/20020318.htm

• • Arun Shourie was a BJP Cabinet Minister - if I am not wrong.BJP is Sangh Parivar
  • Operative being 'was'. Romila Thapar is a self-professed Marxist. Here in free America, that get's you to Gitmo Bay (Netaji 00:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

And before you start whining, Arun Shourie is an academic, historian and political analyst. He is not affiliated to the Sangh Parivaar, nor is he paid by any partisan group to present his research. Plus, the site linked is not financially affiliated with any Hindu group (or any Indian group, for that matter; it's based off of Brussels).

Here's more: http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/dec/19arvind.htm

• • • Arvind is a commentator and not a news reporter - nowhere is it mentioned that BMAC got terrorist funds??

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Babri_Mosque_-_The_Ayodhya_Debate/id/1295615

• • • Circular reference - Check the last line of Experience festival site:

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "The Ayodhya Debate", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

It is clear that the BMAC holds a hardline position on this issue, so much so that even OTHER MUSLIMS, like Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and Asghar Ali Engineer disagree with them (now that's a doozy, they must be really crazy if even muslims get scared by them). Also, bear in mind that elemens in the Sangh Parivaar have suggested that the masjid be re-built side-by-side with the Ramjanmabhoomi mandir, but did the muslims agree? Nooooooooo. It's 'haraam' to coexist with infidels in any way, shape or form. Either convert them or kill them ,right Janaab? (Netaji 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

• • • Naqvi is a minority Shia if he is a Muslim and as per his sect it is possible for them to do "Taqiyyah" - to collaborate.Seocndly - Asghar Ali Engineer has never endorsed giving away the mosque.He is a harsh critic of Sangh Parivar.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

and you can obviously write to him through http://www.csss-isla.com/

• • • • Taqiyyah doesn't mean "collaborate" Janaab. It means "duplicity", and is a well-known ethnocentric canard against Shia muslims (like in the nice tea party presently going on in Iraq). So, let's see. You hate Hindus, Shia muslims, (preubmably) Jews also. wow, and I thought Wahabis were loonies! You have more chips on your shoulder than the Mahdi, mate.(Netaji 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

Call me stupid (must be a godless infidel Hindu thing I guess) but I didn't understand the last sentence of your post. (Netaji 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Ya - Last line - Read your comments again - "However, like I said, you may put it in if you want WITHOUT DELETING ANYTHING. You think you're tough? You ain't seen nothin' yet bubba"

DID YOU FOLLOW YOURSELF WHAT YOU ARE ASKING OTHERS TO DO? HAVE YOU NOT REMOVED A LARGE PART OF THE ARTICLE AND EVEN WRITTEN YOUR OWN POV on the part "History According to the Muslims" Rushdie 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I put the muslim POV below the hindu one. This is so because the muslim pov starts out by criticizing the hindu POV, thus making it logically inconsistent for the muslim one to come first. Plus, the muslim POV part was strife with hate-speech against hindus and unsubstantiated, as well as unreferences stuff, which I have removed. The bit I have added is well-references from an article written by Koenraad Elst, who is neither Indian nor Hindu, but is a Belgian scholar of Indian studies. Sorry, my friend. Now go join Hezbollah. They'll like you there.(Netaji 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

For instance:

"They say that it prove that the Hindu militants believe in "bloodshed and manslaughter" as a means to achieve their goals"

Is unsubstantiated. Hindutva charter clearly states "Harm no creature, but if they attack you, fight back"

"since the killing of Sikhs after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi"

Is irrelevant, since the Sikh riots were perpetrated by Congress sympathizers, and has nothing to do with :the VHP.

"gangs of karsevaks"

Is biased, kar-sevaks don't form gangs. How'd you like it if someone said "gangs of Hamas members"?

shouting 'Jai Shri Ram'

Is irrelevant. So they were shouting stuff. Not unlike "Allahu-Akbar", is it?

"These communities speak of how the Muslims of the town supplied the wood used to build the temples of the :Hindus and grew flowers to string around the necks of the gods and goddesses (Dutas and Devis)."

Yeah, right. And I'm a 23000-year old Buddhist Vampire. Show proof.

"Secondly, this idea of relocating could be considered only in the case of grave necessity and not the whims and fancies of any community that has hegemonous mentality and claims from three to thirty thousands more mosques as being built on destroyed Hindu temples."

Is obvious POV

"fantasize on other Muslim heritage coming up with a story on birth of their dieties, places of their marriage or their death and claim those Muslim monuments as their own."

Bad grammar. I prefer grammatically correct hate-speech, don't you? There is absolutely no proof of this allegation specifically. Maybe in a general sense, but the specificity is wrong, POV, biased, and hate-speech against Hindus. Notice that there is no hate-speech against muslims in my edits.(Netaji 15:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Regarding the version that 64.* and 128.* keep reverting to, here are my issues with it

1. As far as I know, the clear identification of the structure beneath the Babri ruins has not been confirmed as a Hindu temple, and certainly not as a Rama Janmabhoomi temple. While I believe, and you might believe, that this structure was in fact a Rama Janmabhoomi temple destroyed by Babar, while definititive evidence is lacking it remains an allegation, and we must state it as such. Of course, you might know more than I about the matter - could you provide sources demonstrating that the structure is, in fact, a Rama janmabhoomi temple?
2. Regarding the appearance of idols, they did not "mysteriously appear", they were placed there by activists. I don't know why we should avoid saying this. Also, it certainly wasn't disused - there were Muslim prayer services being conducted there at the time, and quibbling by Koenraad Elst et al. about what qualifies it as a fully-functional mosque does not mitigate this fact.
3. I'd like to equivocate more on the actual destruction... I don't think there's definitive proof that it was pre-planned. However, the version presented, where you ascribe motives to the crowd (i.e., "anger at ... pandering to the Muslim vote bank") are wholly indefensible.
4. In general your presentation is highly partisan. If you wish to make the article -less- partisan, please do so - your changes are egregiously pro-Sangh and not appropriate. E.g., the last statement "These findings were promptly rejected by the Communists and other political parties which depend on the Muslim vote bank." is certainly clearly partisan.

Please let me know what you think of these points... I hope we can work together to make this a better article. Graft 18:58, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On the points made by Graft

First of all, my view is not pro-Sangh or anti-Sangh or pro-Muslim or anything of that sort. I am interested in posting things in a scientific manner. On the points you made and some more new points:

1) The structure beneath the Babri ruins HAS been confirmed as a Hindu temple. Like it or not, it has happened. The excavations were overseen by all parties involved and once the confirmation happened, the same political parties which were eagerly supporting the excavations suddenly condemned the excavations.

2) "mysteriously appear" includes being placed there by activist/activists. Obviously, it had to be placed there. "mysteriously appear" means it was placed there. By whom we do not know. "mysteriously appear" also captures the fact that the discovery of placement came as a surprise.

Notice your biases here - going by your argument, we should add the word 'allegedly' before "placed by activists." Your points against Hindus are all assertions while the points which are grievances by Hindus are made as 'allegations.'

3) The mosque was disused. In fact, there was no one on the Muslim side who could claim ownership in a court of law. The only arguments made in court that it was not disused was a claim by a politician that he once saw one person praying there many years ago while going on a walk. Clearly, you do not understand the politics in India.

4) "However, the version presented, where you ascribe motives to the crowd (i.e., "anger at ... pandering to the Muslim vote bank") are wholly indefensible."

You point is well taken. I will delete it. I should not have added that part, but the crowd did go out of control and was angry at the police for barricading them. It was a motley crowd and you cannot say they were VHP activists.

5) "These findings were promptly rejected by the Communists and other political parties which depend on the Muslim vote bank." is certainly clearly partisan.

Come on, this is a fact. RSS itself originated as a reaction to pandering of Muslims (check out separate electorates for Muslims during British times.)

I am not sure how familiar you are with the politics of India, but BJP rode to power on these issues - scrapping of special status for the only Muslim majority state in India and treating all states as equal, scrapping of Shariat laws for Muslims (in particular, Muslim women are persecuted by Mullahs ruling in disputes, Shah Bano case was the flashpoint), Muslim educational institutions receiving subsidies while Hindus in India are banned from running educational institutions, all revenues from Hindu temples being appropriated by the Government which then subsidise Madrasas and of course the issue at Ayodhya.

6) Of the above, everyone of them is a legitimate issue except Ayodhya. I explain Ayodhya below in point number 7. Anyone with common sense will see that political parties indulge in unequal treatment only for getting votes. Anyone familiar with India will know that Muslims voting en-masse on the orders of the Mullah in the mosque is a reality and that is why Muslims were appeased.

7) Ayodhya was not a legitimate issue because it should not be legislated by politicians. It should be treated purely as a legal dispute and evidence should be seen in a scientific manner. Politicians should have kept off completely. However, no political party in India thought on these lines. I don't blame them for it. They are not highly educated people to figure out that it was a legal issue to begin with.

8) The part about LK Advani pleading in city after city that Hindus and Muslims should jointly shift the structure brick by brick and he will get the Hindus to fund for it is a fact.

You should stop stringing together allegations and writing up an article. That is the hallmark of a poor journalist. That is an indirect way of sneaking in POVs. Please don't be biased. It is bad enough that India has been devastated repeatedly by all the known forms of unlibertarian groups - Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Socialists, Colonialists and indirectly by Pax Americana advocates who supported Osama bin Laden and Mujahideen.

OTOH, it has been unique in not seeing any anti-semitism and has welcomed people of all religions into its fold. When Parsis were persecuted, they came to India. When Jews were persecuted, they came to India and settled down. Syrian Christians found a home in India and when Tibetans were beaten out by Communists, they came to India too.

Choosing Communist sources and giving them prominence is unacceptable. Please desist from it.

9) I suggest you do proper research and you will see that the first recorded flareup was in the 19th century, and so was the first case filed in court. The British judge actually ruled that a temple had been destroyed but he felt helpless and could not restore it as it would upset the public order.

10) Your point on posting references is well taken. I'll do that too in addition to deleting the reference to the reason for anger by the crowd as pandering to Muslim votes. I read your comment after posting it. That is why you don't find it already in place.

Forgot to add in my previous comment

I forgot to add one point. Notice the way you describe Rama as a mythical figure. That was an assertion. Would you make the same assertion regarding Jesus, Mohammed flying on a horse etc? I don't see you making such corrections there in an assertive tone. Clearly that shows your prejudices.

Observing Hindus around the world, I see that they do not strap themselves with explosives and blast themselves in public places, do not hijack planes and slam them into buildings and do not wage religious wars. I can only conclude that the allegations against Hindus being the most evil people on earth is fiction.

Okay, I thank you for engaging me, and having done so I'm far more willing to tolerate your alterations. Some points:

I have two main sources of information on Ayodhya: one is the books and literature of the Sangh and Hindutva crowd, and the other is the Internet and Indian newspapers. Both of these have their biases, and not residing in India I must admit I have a hard time distilling out the truth. So please forgive me if I attribute something that you feel is clearly untrue, because it's probably simply a mistake or ignorance on my part.

As to actual points: "mysteriously appeared" I dislike because it plays into the stories that this was a God-ordained event or some sort of miracle. I've read that there was a police report confirming the identity of the man who placed the idols, and Anand Patwardhan in one of his (admittedly biased) documentaries interviews a man who claims to be the placer (i forget if he had the same name)... at any rate, I'd at least like to include "probably placed by Hindu activists" or, as you say, "allegedly placed".

I found an article on the latest excavations in Organiser, which I find fairly compelling, but I'd be interested in reading objections to it just to know what they were.

Regarding use of the mosque, I've read arguments saying that it was disused, but I think these arguments mostly hinge on what "disused" means. I've only really read one side of this argument, but on the other side, there's testimony that namaaz was conducted until 1949 and an imam responsible for the site until the placing of the statue. Not sure about how reliable either is.

Regarding the Communist/pandering - I really don't know whether Muslims vote on the word of mullahs or if that's just a myth, not really having any way to verify that, but in any event I think the juxtaposition is there just to discredit the communists, et al, which I think should be avoided.

Regarding Advani - I'd like to be careful about describing him. He's a politician and a slippery one, and he certainly says a lot of things in public, but there are just as many reports of things he did and said not-so-publicly that belie his noble intentions, and I can certainly believe it. I don't think we should be drawing him as some guy who was just trying to do the right thing by everyone... his motives were most definitely cynical.

As to non-article-related stuff... I don't agree that Ayodhya is a legal issue - first of all, who are the parties? And secondly, it's about a historical site, and a major, significant one (obviously) - the government has to take a hand.

Also, I describe Rama as a mythical figure because he's a mythical figure, like Oddysseus or Moses. His importance is more in his symbolic meaning and actions than in his historical context, which is dubious at best.

Anyway, thanks again for responding to my points. Graft 06:58, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agree about mythical figure but...

I agree about the mythical figure part. My theory about all of these figures is that there must have been someone somewhere with some small following and the followers built up fiction about these figures. My point is the unequal treatment of various religions - Christianity and Judaism is usually treated as history while assertions about the "mythical" nature of other religions is made. I have heard the term "Hindu mythology" but never "Christian mythology."

BTW, Organiser is a mouthpiece of RSS and Anand Patwardhan is a known Communist sympathiser. However, the piece about the evidence at Ayodhya must have been a good one because the facts are on their side.

Unfortunately, India's media as well as academics were controlled by the Communists until the 1990s when the stranglehold on the academia was broken. That is why everything is very contentious in India - Aryan Invasion Theory was made up by Max Mueller, a missionary who fitted it into the claim that Biblical creation occured around 3987 BCE, treatment of all events as class struggles (Hindu vs Muslim fits into this), hiding of Muslim atrocities - travel across North India and not a single temple which is undamaged is older than 150 years though the civilization is 1000s of years old while South India which escaped Islamic rule has very old temples in all their splendour, branding Hindus as evil - evidence shows the contrary, indians are peaceful people who welcomed people of other religions over the ages while they themselves never fought back when they were evicted by Idi Amin, by the dictators in Burma and even puny Fiji.

To let you know where I'm coming from, I am an agnost and a libertarian. I've created a new id - LibertarianAnarchist for convenience. I am still learning the format to make an entry. So pardon me if you find anything incomplete. I'll post the references you suggested.

That is a whole heap of hippy gibberish. Indians most certainly did stike back, and first at times. I'm not ecven going to get into this. You appear to have been tainted by BJP VHP propaganda.

And you by muslim mullahs and terrorists like bin-Laden, as well as white Christian supremacists like David Duke and Pat Robertson. RSS is here to stay. Get used to it, or go live in Iran and see what they do to you there.(Pusyamitra Sunga 06:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

Temple evidence

OneGuy, are you being deliberately obtuse? The previous paragraph contains text that clearly states that the Archaeological Survey of India found evidence of a temple structure. It's inappropriate for you to insert a paragraph that says "no evidence has been found", in direct contradiction of the previous paragraph. Edit it so it is in line with the above text, fine, but the way it's written is absurd. Graft 19:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you are being obtuse. You implied in the article that only Muslims dispute the finding of this Archaeological Survey. That's not the case. The ASI report was published in 2003. This quote from a non-Muslim historian is dated at May 2004, so clearly "Muslim groups" are not the only ones who dispute the claim. And here is another review of ASI report by Dr Sushil Shrivastava, a Professor at Allahabad University, the author of the book The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry[9]. Clearly some experts think ASI report doesn't show evidence of Temple structure OneGuy 00:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to you altering that sentence about "only Muslims"; I have no attachment to it, it's obviously inaccurate. But do so in a manner that isn't wholly at odds with the flow of the article. Having flatly contradictory sentences in subsequent paragraphs is just silly. Graft 07:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits by User:81.1.123.238 and User:Lalitshastri

The edits done on 15 and 16 January deleted prior information and added POV material. We are all trying to be NPOV on wikipedia, so let's have a fair representation of both sides. This demands some effort and good will from both sides.

Furthermore, there are some severe inaccuracies. For example, there is the following instance: "Richard M Eaton, an American historian of medieval India, in his Essays on Islam and Indian History documents desecration of all Hindu temples between 1192 and 1760. The total adds up to 80."

This is ridiculous. First of all, Eaton in his controversial book does not claim that this list is exhaustive. And, if we look at the list of eighty cases, there is for example this instance: “1094: Benares, Ghurid army”. This doesn't mean the Ghurid Army destroyed just one temple, because if we take the time to look at the sources he used, we read the Ghurid royal army “destroyed nearly one thousand temples, and raised mosques on their foundations”. So this "eigthty" neeeds some zeros added.

Here are some links, for reference:

• The Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir
• Ayodhya
• The Ayodhya Debate
• article on Ayodhya
• Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Lord Rama
• FACTS ABOUT THE AYODHYA DISPUTE

--Kdlb 21:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you are Disputing this article then for Gods Sake tell us what you are disputing

None of the edits by Lalit Shastri quotes Richard M Eaton, so I don't know why you bring him into this discussion. Regarding a Personal Point of View, why do you bring that up here - Instead of using hackneyed cliques kindly give specific examples where we have violated our strict neutrality or shut up.

The edits made, represent a brief and factual account of the events at Ayhodya when the Mosque was destroyed the sources quoted are Time magazine journalists Jefferson Penberthy and Anita Pratap - These journalists are quoted by name as they are considered credible witnesses by the High Court of Allahabad where they gave evidence against LK Advani who faces crimnal charges.

Many other witnesses were present and amongst the journalists there. The BBC crew filmed the destruction and part of the narrative is from the BBC news team. We are grateful to Syed Naqi Editor of India's leading newspaper the Tribune for also describing the events. A personal friend of Lilit Shastri, Rahul Bajpai of Reuters was also assigned to cover Ahyodya and the mosque since 1990. The narrative is taken from these sources and you can contact them to confirm.

Also quoted on the myth of a Hindu temple being there are Professor Gopal head of Social Sciences & history at the Jawharlal Nehru University and son of Dr Radhakrisnan President of India, & Romilla Thapar Historian of Ancient India also from the JUNU. Romilla Thapar is advisor to the Govt of India on Ancient Indian history and is amongst a panel which overseas the content of textbooks in Indian Schools.

We have also taken the point of view of the VHP, RSS and the BJP all complicit destroying the Temple and have described the behavior of their leaders Uma Bharati and LK Advani who encouraged the mob from a podium constructed by the VHP so that their leadershp could witness the destruction.

However if there are those who disagree it goes without saying you can bring your points to this discussion but remember there are highly intelligent academics who lurk watching these pages - So please do not bring rubbish - But pearls of wisdom and knowledge are always welcome by almost everybody

Also It must be remembered this is not a Hindu - Muslim thing - We at Wikipedia are more enlightened than that - Racism, Bigotry, Obscurantism, ignorance and superstition are to be shunned by all men of wisdom

We do not care if it was a mosque or Temple although the historians who have any credibility Internationally say that there was no Temple.

We do care about the people slaughtered by the actions of those in India who try and spread communal strife, It is worth remembering during the rule of the RSS and its political wing the BJP twice more people died of communal violence in India then those that died in the Twin Towers.

User:81.1.123.238

This article you have written is clearly written to advance a specific point of view; that is, that the BJP, VHP, etc., are violent thugs, historical evidence is not on their side, and so on. The article avoids mentioning facts that contradict this thesis - for example, it neglects to mention the use of police violence by the UK government in defending the site. It neglects to mention (even dismissively) evidence contradicting the idea that there was no temple beneath the mosque (e.g. the Archaeological Survey of India findings). It uses phrases like "murderous gangs" to describe kar sevaks, which is highly POV. Etc., etc.

Gentlemen, you MUST acknowledge your own point of view. It is obvious you are writing this because you wish to present a certain picture of events, and that is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. If you would like to create a neutral, balanced article, then we have a starting point from which to work. Your version of the article is not that. No matter how sympathetic I or other editors may be to the substance of what you wish to say, the manner in which you have constructed this article is terribly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Graft 20:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As this is the Talk page, let me express my opinion about the destruction of the mosque and the associated politics. I remember watching the BBC and other sources on the day of the demolition. I think it is extremely regrettable that major places of worship in India can be demolished by mob action, with a complacent, even complicit government. I was happily surprised that matters did not deteriorate to full anarchy when the BJP took power, the first non-secular government since independance. Without secular government in India, I fear the nation is doomed to a bloodbath of communal violence. I believe the BJP and it's allies instigated and exploited the entire disgraceful affair, but then backed off a radical Hindu agenda after achieving political ascendancy, because it knew that result of not backing off would be civil war. Now, regarding the history of the site: Although not proven beyond all doubt, I think it is possible that Babur demolished a Temple and then built the Mosque on top of it. It was in fact unusual for Muslim conquerers to leave untouched any non-Abrahamic temple or related institution, which they considered idolatrous and blasphemous, especially in the early years of the Mogul conquest. This, if true, in no way justifies the destruction, which was a cultural catastrophe for all Indians regardless of their background, as many prominent secular Hindus have pointed out. Furthermore, this is an article about the Mosque itself. I don't think we should get too bogged down with the politics and the controversy surrounding the origins of the site. That is why I added pictures and started the section dealing with architecture and style, and was very pleased to see it expanded. A brief description of opposing points of view, along with a narrative of relevant Indian judicial proceedings and the current status quo, ought to be a sufficient and neutral companion to the more central content that actually deals with the building itself. --A. S. A. 11:15, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your scintillating post. If you read the many works of renown scholar Daniel Pipes, he will demonstrate quite logically that democracy and secularism do not necessarily go hand in hand. Israel and the US are more succesful democracies than India. Israel is a Jewish State and US is a Christian one. Thus, a democratic Hindu Rashtra is implementable without the removal of muslims from India (which would be ridiculous anyway, there are 130 million of them, too many to be forcibly removed). That does not mean that the RamJanmabhoomi was not a legitimate act of repatriation. It was, just like the temple Mount in Israel.(Netaji 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Netaji, who's in RamJanmabhoomi's name told you that the US is a christian state

The Ten Commandments outside courts, the state sponsored churches, the right wing voted into power.Christian State. Simple.Plus, BJP/NDA was WAAAAY more democratic and progressive than Congress/UPA. BJP passed the "Prasaar Bharati" law, requiring media to be independent of government. Shiv Sena built more flyovers in Mumbai in 10 years than Congress did in 50. Who cares if we are a 'socialist and secular' state when we are a stinking pile of feces compared to most countries in the world? I'd rather have a non-secular and PROSPEROUS country than a secular and hopeless one. Congress/UPA bans websites, books and movies, practices caste based politics and allows muslims to beat their women half to death as per Sharia Law. Some democracy, what a sick joke!Netaji 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I was drawn to this page by curiosity or by accident (Wiki is featuring an article about mosques and that's how I got here), now back to our topic, I will expand further. The US state (and please note the word STATE not personal agendas or religious driven politics) is SECULAR accroding to its constitution and STRICTLY enforces the separation between the church and state, the US STATE (I'm not talking here about GWB neither the religious right) doesn't endorse a religion nor favors a certain religion over the other http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_church#States_without_any_state_religion. Regarding the ten commandments monuments, please note the supreme court ruling has rendered them constitutional on the basis that they convey historical message rather than religious (if they were ruled religious, they would have been removed, make no doubt about that). Also, if you followed the ID/evolution debate, you can see that courts have ruled that ID cannot be taught at schools because it introduces religion (precisely it advances a certain religious point of view) into class and hence it violates the constitution. Bottom line, the US IS NOT a christian state because it's not defined as such by the its consitituion, nor its courts.

Hindu scriptures also convey historical messages along the same lines, yet I don't see shlokas from the Rigveda (the foundation of our civilization) or from the Upanishads displayed anywhere in the Indian Supreme Court. The fact remains that the media and the courts can cook up whatever pseudo-justification all they want. US law is based on biblical law, US government is christian government, non-christians have no political representation of significance, yet christians do. The ten-commandments is part of Judeo-Christian RELIGION. To incorporate those laws into the system means USA is run by CHRISTIAN LAW. Christian churches ARE built on state peoperty, and Americans in the overwhelming majority want more christian laws incorporated into their legal system. The pledge says "One Nation under GOD" quite clearly (though it did not originally). The founders of the US wanted it to be a secular state, but Americans today do not. Today, America is no more secular than Zimbabwe. It is a great illusion to claim that secularism is synonymous with democracy, and that is the lie that JNU brainwashing-machines^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htextbooks won't tell you. ID/evolution has nothing to do with this.Netaji

It's very true about Judeo-christian hertiage and its influence on american public, but to say that the US is a christian state is technically incorrect. I'm not arguing whether secularism is compatible with democracy or not. Have a nice day.

Technically USA is not Christian state but it is a de-facto Christian state.Thanks for your points.Netaji 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

you're fast, I just made some adjustments, thank you again.

PLus, India today is a de-facto Islamic state, with an apartheid system against Hindus. Get ready to be bombed by America soon. Have a nice day.Netaji 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello AladdinSE, Thanks for your good edits. Personally, until recently I didn't know very much about this debate, and I am still rather an outsider to this topic, that's why I won't contribute much to the article itself.

I think, the whole topic could have been solved more peacefully, if both parties had talked together, but unfortunately the whole thing was exploited by politicians on both sides.

As a sidenote, not all Muslims seem to adher to the views of the two "rivaling Masjid Committees", for example: Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said: "It is the duty of every nationalist Indian to protect the birthplace of Lord Rama to save India's honour, prestige and cultural heritage.... Anti-national and communal activities of Muslim fundamentalists are a blot on the entire community... It is the duty of all nationalist Muslims to expose such designs and accept the truth." Ahmed Zakaria is quoted by Farzana Versey as saying : "There is absolutely no question of our identity being submerged. The Babri Masjid committee does not represent all Muslims. How can two or three people decide ?"

Some of the problems in the article are: 1) Political debate. Still biased. Should also show the efforts that were made to solve the whole thing peacefully, and how this was undone by politicians. 2) Archaeological evidence. This is still biased and incomplete. 3) Literary evidence. The literary evidence should be discussed and/or criticised 4) The article has a lenghty discussion with pictures of the destruction of the mosque, but doesn't discuss the destruction of this and other temples by Babar and others. According to some sources, there were two destructions of this temple, one in the 12-13 century (the temple was after rebuilt) and one by Babar.

I think the article still needs some editing before it can be called npov, and believe someone will remove it from the npov disputes after this is done. A look at the viewpoints from both sides will confirm that the article still isn't npov. Regards, --Kdlb 09:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Kdlb, I think your Eaton book edit was necessary and well placed. As far as the further discussion of alleged destruction of temples by Babur and others, that you want included, naturally there is going to be no where near as much material, much less pictures, as is available for the Babri destruction. We're talking 1992 versus the 16th century. Also, that the archeological evidence is incomplete and disputed is clearly noted in the article. Further discussion of literary evidence would be fine, if more contributors would site such work. When I did that last exhaustive edit, I deliberately left the Disputed Neutrality tag, because I believed that there was still bias and emotionalism evident, and was hoping new contributors with a fresh outlook would help remedy that. Perhaps I will revisit the article later. I have become too involved with all these extensive rewrites, and I need to regain an outside perspective.--A. S. A. 12:06, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to put a hold on more pictures, the article cannot hold any more, al least not gracefully. I removed the recent addition of the mobs at the gate, since kar sevaks are shown in abundance already. I have reverted a number of Levy's edits because they added an emotional POV taint to the article, and belabored existing points. Others I agreed with, and simply reorganized them to better incorporate the new information with the flow of the article.--A. S. A. 18:30, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see that anonymous user 81.1.118.31 had profound objections to my last revision, but has since withdrawn his/her Talk comments, I was only able to read them via History tracking. I'll tell you what I told Levy. I am not here to champion a cause, I am here to help create a proper encyclopedic article, free from emotional POV baggage. I have already clearly stated for the record that I believe the demolition was a disgrace. That does not mean I will allow the article to be a monotonous breast-beating Muslim-dominated propaganda bulletin. And I'll have you know I was the first contributor to introduce a picture of the Mosque, and the first to introduce a section on architecture and style [see history], so I am not only an editor of other people's submissions. Furthermore, you harm your cause by being so blatantly repetitious and one-sided. The general public reading the heavily POV versions of this article will more likely than not give small credence to Muslim viewpoints when they are so relentlessly thrust in their faces without proper recourse to other viewpoints. Balance and brevity should be our guiding principles.--A. S. A. 21:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Picture sizes

Pictures of this mosque should not be resized a large part of the article is on the architecture of the mosque The present pictures support and complement the article. I have recverted them back to their original size. I also wish to point out 5that Kaal feels uncomfortable with these pictures as I can see no other reason why he should try to make them so tiny.

• It is really unfair on your part to talk about what i feel like, bcos you will never be able to tell unless you know me in person, and i am fairly sure you dont. About the pictures i only resized them as the article looks really ugly and is difficult to read. If anyone wants to look at the picture indetail they can always click on it to see the full image. I have been doing image resizing for a number of articles just to make them easy to read and for no other reason. Its always good to have images on one side of the article as this makes it look good and easy to follow. kaal 04:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture resolutions can be reduced and made into thumbnails in the main articles for the purpose of organizational optimization. Those pictures really were too big. Don't forget that readers can easily click on the thumbnails to see the full size. What's more, please assume good faith regarding fellow editors. The attack against Kaal was unecessary. Also, please sign your posts in the talk page, so other editors can properly track and respond to posts, thanks. --A. S. A. 07:18, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's Picture Tutorial for guidelines on picture layout and format.--A. S. A. 03:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Organisation of the article

I made some expansions to the article and some reorganisations. I moved all matter relevant to the archaeology of the temple to the Ram Janmabhoomi article, because it discusses the existence or non-existence of the temple. Most of the history of the mosque after 1528 (or after 1194) is now in the Babri Mosque article. The Ayodhya article itself should of course only discuss the city, not the debate. I also expanded the archaeology and literature and other sections. In fact, a lot of important information was missing in the article and may still be missing. Hopefully other editors (like User:AladdinSE who has been one of the best editors to this article, as far as I can see) take a look at it and write something from their perspective. --Kyuss 14:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Beware the Original Article was sabotaged by user Kyuss

As a original contributor to this article along with J Levy and Richard Charlesworth of Cambridge University and the mosque photographs by R Bajpai of Reuters, I feel entitled to point out. User Kyuss seems to be a rabid member of the RSS, I wish to point out that his self proclaimed well meaning edits are simply a hidden agenda, the destruction of an article put together many months ago, and then constantly editeds to render it almost meaningless. It is clear user Kyuss fancies himself an historian and editor – However his facts are wrong and his edits clumsy. But this is wikipedia and he is most welcome to contribute even though we waste a lot of time having to point out the errors of his ways and cleaning up his mess. However his work on the article may not be the innocence of the ignorant and uninformed. He might be a paid up member of a communal organization called the RSS as he has expressed a similar type of bigotry and follows the RSS party line and version of Indian history. This version has been proved a fiction by all leading Indian and International historians. We know he has very little knowledge of history from his work – but sometimes a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. His edits do not enlighten, spread darkness hate and misinformation. User Kyuss’s dirty hand is everywhere trying to distort history. If he wishes to write about a temple let him set up his own Ram temple article. The Babri was one of India's leading mosques and an important archeological and historic monument. The mosque was part of India's heritage and history. After all the Muslims did rule India for 800 years. The article is about a mosque which existed as the photographs will testify. If there was a temple at the site then all means start an article elsewhere giving details of the temple and say it existed before the mosque But please do not distort history. And also abuse the intelligence of wiki readers. You are teaching newcomers, the evil sectarian and hate spreading ideology of the RSS This way of thinking has caused the deaths of thousands of Indians via riots

SO folks BEWARE USER KYUSS an ignorant man can also be a dangerous man.

Lalit Shastri

Recent vandalism by User:81.1.126.243 (User:Lalitshastri)

In reply to Lalit Shastri's vandalism and to his love-letter from above:

• Vandalizing pages and making large-scale deletions to information you don't like is NOT the way wikipedia works. This kind of behaviour will get you NOWHERE on wikipedia.
• It is you that were and are trying to push a highly POV version of your version of the article and are deleting every information you don't like. I (unlike you) didnt' delete any information in the article, although a lot of your contributions was and is unsourced and pov if not factually false. (I moved however some information to the temple article.) I had nothing at all to do with your deleted pictures (I think they were deleted by admins because they were lacking copyrights).
• If however, you find a way to improve the article please do so in a civilized manner. And if you think that there is text that is pov, not wikified, lacking sources or disputable, then please improve it in a civilized manner.
• Claiming that I'm a "rabid member of the RSS" is as pointless and totally irrelevant to the article as me claiming that you were a member of the GNAA. Just for your information, I'm NOT a member of ANY political organisation.
• Some of Lalit Shastri's contributions to wikipedia can be found here. They may reveal more of his apparent bias (and are in fact quite entertaining). (I mean of course his Ayodhya and RSS related rants.)
• This article is still a work in progress. A lot of information may still be missing in the article.

--Kyuss 08:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has become so infested with ham fisted ignoramus from the RSS like user Kyuss Editing it is like descending into a snake pit

Firstly, can I ask who got rid of pictures of Uma Bharti and Advani standing in front of the mosque, as it was being destroyed and those of Kar Savaks wielding cutlasses. Secondly I wrote the upper third of the article on the architecture, thats still there, I am not defending my own work, there is no need to. But of other contributers which is not there. did you delete these????? I have reverted the article to its original and no doubt you Kyuss will immediately go for the revert button. Meanwhile user Kyuss that was not a "love letter" why should I love you, don't be silly. That was more of a whipping a chastisement. Maybe you are one those who LOVES being caned, some sort of repressed perverted gratification to go with your rabid fanaticism. I have contributed a section on homophobia and the SA of the Third Reich, those other brown shirts, only this time its Khaki short pants from Nagpaur. Keep editing articles that’s what wiki is for. You of the Bajrang monkey Brigade are entitled to express an opinion in this manner expose yourself, this time flashing another very small part of your anatomy your brains. After all Wiki is a democracy.

Lalit Shastri

Exactly, Wiki is a democracy, so please adhere to democratic principles. Can I ask you to read the pages on NPOV and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? And I already wrote that I didn't delete information or pictures, though I moved some text to the temple article. As for the rest, read my above reply. Your contributions to the homophobia of the SA is a very sympathetic contribution of yours. It is in fact sad that homophobics from the Christian Right and others are constantly alleging that the Nazis were gays, while in fact they were very anti-gay. I only wish you would show the same tolerance and open-minded spirit to the critical information in this article. The article may still be in need of improvement, but deleting all critical information from it will not make it any better. Peace, --Kyuss 11:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Two References Missing

• I had read once, during the 1992-1993 period, that the Muslims had conceded in 1857 the site to the Hindus in exchange for their support during the uprising against the English government, and that after the re-establishment of English rule, the English government negated that agreement. Is there any truth or reference for this agreement?

• Why is there no mention of the archaeological excavations at the site by the Archaeological Survey of India on the orders of the Indian Supreme Court, and the findings?

WikiSceptic 04:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

The article says that nearly a million karsevaks destroyed the mosque - i'm really not sure about this number. I've heard numbers like '200000' before, but I know that was in dispute as well. Does anyone know of any accurate estimates? Willardo 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I looked up various sources and I got various answers. Jul/Aug 2004 edition of Archaeology says 75,000 whereas Spring 2000 of Growth & Change (an academic journal) uses the 200,000 figure you mentioned.Pepsidrinka 05:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This article [10] (only the first four paragraphs are available for free and the number of participants is not available unless you pay) states the figure at 150,000. Pepsidrinka 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Hinduism

I don't agree with putting this discussion / article in with the wikiproject on Hinduism. We have to remember that there is a significant and crucial difference between Hinduism as a religion, and Hindu nationalism, the significant force behind the Babri destruction. Putting them together is a dangerous political argument. Willardo 10:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Babri Mosque is an important event in the history of Hinduism. It was said to be the birth place of Lord Rama. The temple that commemorated his birth was torn down by islamic invaders and a mosque was built in its place. The Mosque was torn down by Hindus. Hindu nationalism orginates from Hinduism. --Dangerous-Boy 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On your central point - that Hindu nationalism originates from Hinduism - I strongly disagree. We can say that (for example) glass originates from sand. Yet to ignore the very dramatic changes - and other ingredients - that are necessary to leap between sand and glass is to ignore the essence of the difference. Hinduism is not Hindu nationalism, and vice versa. If they were the same thing, why did the destruction occur when it did? Willardo 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You stated it yourself. Glass needs sands. Saying that Hindu Nationalism is not apart of Hinduism is incorrect. The idealogy originates from Hinduism. It were Hindus that torn down that mosque. It is the Hindus that make up Hindu Nationalism. It like saying Muslims do not make up or did not create the Taliban or Al Aqaeda. Like it or not, that's apart of Islamic history. The tearing of this mosque is apart of Hindu history. --Dangerous-Boy 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my analogy. I am not doubting that Hindu nationalism draws on Hinduism. But saying that it is 'the Hindus' (as if it is all Hindus) that make up Hindu nationalism is simply not correct. To follow out the analogy, does sand automatically turn to glass? You will never get glass from sand simply by waiting. So what causes sand to turn in to glass? What is the agent that forces change? Please recognise that such difference and such causality is very important when trying to understand a phenomenon. Willardo 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

But glass still needs the sand to exist. Otherwise, it can't form. --Dangerous-Boy 09:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My Congrats to all who have contributed to this article

Let me first congratulate all those who contributed to this article. Its quite an accomplishment in itself. The part about the destruction of the mosque is not an easy topic to write about and it is even more difficult to keep it a Neutral Point Of View as this was anything but a neutral event. I hope that this article will be nominated to become a feature article so that more people will read it and understand how complex relations between different communities in India are.

hydkat 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi. Please note that images licensed "to Wikipedia only", "for non-commercial use", or "for educational use" are candidates for speedy deletion (I3). Wikipedia is an attempt to create a free, reusable encyclopedia, including commercial re-use, and such licenses are incompatible with this goal. Any such images may be deleted at any time, and I would like to very much encourage the editors here to remove such images from this article and find freely-licensed replacements. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 23:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Urdu instead of arabic?

Should it be urdu instead of arabic in the intro.--Dangerous-Boy 07:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

82.44.179.214 edits

The edits by 82.44.179.214 use pov language like "these Nazis", makes offtopic allegations and is unsourced. It needs to be npov'ed and sourced, if there is something valuable in it.

Muslims claim that neither history nor fact can come to prove the Hindu case. Hindu motives are not confined to Babri Masjid. If they succeed in snatching away Babri Masjid from Muslims, it will be made a precedent to extend the agitation to every other place of religious importance to the Muslims.

They claimthat is clear that the allegations, on which, the demands of RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad & Hindu Munnani are based for laying claim to Babri Masjid are rooted in hatred.

In India, several Buddhist and Jain temples were demolished and several Hindu temples constructed instead. If the Buddhists and Jain claim on historical demands for justice, then will the Hindu agree to demolish them and allow the Buddhists and Jain to erect their places of worship?

They further say that there is no limit to the Hindu fanatical imagination like of the theory that Taj Mahal is a Shiva Temple? A paper presented at the World Hindu Conference at Columbo in April 1982 claimed that "The Hajrul Aswad (Kaaba, the Black Stone) is only a form of Shivalinga."

According to the District Gazetteer Faizabad 1905, it is said that "up to this time (1855), both the Hindus and Muslims used to worship in the same building. But since the Mutiny (1857), an outer enclosure has been put up in front of the Masjid and the Hindus forbidden access to the inner yard, make the offerings on a platform (chabootra), which they have raised in the outer one."

Militant Hindus in 1883 wanted to construct a temple on this chabootra, but the Deputy Commissioner prohibited the same on Jan. 19, 1885. Raghubir Das, a mahant, filed a suit before the Faizabad Sub-Judge. Pandit Harikishan was seeking permission to construct a temple on this chabootra measuring 17 ft. x 21 ft. the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Faizabad District Judge, Colonel J.E.A. Chambiar who after an inspection of spot on March 17, 1886, dismissed the appeal.

A Second Appeal was filed on May 25, 1886, before the Judicial Commissioner of Awadh, W. Young, who also dismissed the appeal. With this, the first round of legal battle fought by the Hindu militants came to an end.

During the "communal riots" of 1934, walls around the Masjid and one of the domes of the Masjid were damaged. These were reconstructed by the British Government.

On mid-night of December 22, 1949, when the police guards were asleep, idols of Rama and Sita were quietly smuggled into the Masjid and were planted by a group of Hindu Nazis. This was reported by constable, Mata Prasad, the next morning and recorded at the Ayodhya police station.

According to a pre-conceived plan, the following morning (Dec. 23, 1949), a large "Hindu" crowd made a "frantic attempt" to enter the Masjid on the pretext of offering puja to the idols illegally planted. The District Magistrate K.K. Nair has recorded that "The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen were rushed off their feet. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The sadhus recklessly hurled themselves against men and arms and it was with great difficulty that we managed to hold the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and police force was strengthened (5:00 pm)." Thus, the fight of fanatics became frustrated.

On hearing this shocking news Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru became very furious and directed UP Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant, to see that the idols were removed. Under Pant's orders, Chief Secretary Bhagwan Sahay and Inspector-General of Police V.N. Lahiri sent immediate instructions to Faizabad to remove the idols. However, K.K. Nair feared that the Hindu mob would cause "bloodshed and manslaughter" and pleaded inability to carry out the orders. Since then, the Hindu extremists came to believe that "disorder and violence" alone would pay.

They say that it prove that the Hindu militants believe in "bloodshed and manslaughter" as a means to achieve their goals. On Jan. 5, 1950 the chairman of the Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya Municipal Board was appointed Receiver to take charge of the Masjid under Sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. The Civil suit (No. 2 of 1950) filed by Gopal Singh Visharad on Jan. 16, 1950 before the Civil Judge Faizabad seeking permission to worship these idols (which had been illegally planted in the Masjid), is still pending and the matter is now before the High Court. There are eight defendants including five Muslims and the Govt. of UP. The statement of the Deputy Commissioner, J.N. Ugra, filed before the court, said: "on the night of Dec. 22, 1949, the idols of Ramachandraji were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside the Masjid."

On Jan. 25, 1986, a 28-year old Umesh Chandra Pandey who was not even born when the suit was filed, went to court seeking permission for himself and his co-religionists to worship these idols in the Masjid. The District Judge, K.M. Pandey recorded a statement of the District magistrate (i.e., the Revenue Officer) T.K. Pandey and without even giving an opportunity to the others who were parties to the dispute, passed an interim order related to a dispute whose file was at the High Court. At the time of passing the orders, the main file was not before the said District Judge!

Within minutes of passing the order the locks that had been put 37 years ago (on Dec. 23, 1949) were broken and "idol worship" started. It is very clear that V.C. Pandey, K.M. Pandey and T.K. Pandey all belong to a subsect of a sub-caste, as their very names indicate.

The state TV lost no time to telecast the opening of the locks, the worship and the mob fanfare on that very day. Muslims claim that this goes to show the TV officials might have had prior knowledge of the court's orders. Evidently the media was under the influence of high-caste Brahmins.

The upper Hindu caste-controlled "national press" has hidden the above mentioned facts while highlighting the events related to the Baht Masjid / Ram-Janam-Bhoomi issue. The media is projecting only the Nazi view-point.

Lately, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other like minded militant Brahmins are holding meetings where pledges are being taken that the Babri Masjid shall not be released to Muslims irrespective of the final judicial verdict. And these Nazis are the very people who often boast that "judiciary is the only hope of India". Those who advocate the rule of law are breaking the law on Babri Masjid. The tradition of treating the mosque site as the birthplace of Rama appears to have begun in early l8th century. The earliest suggestion that the Babri Masjid is in proximity to the birthplace of Ram was made by the Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, whose work in French was published in Berlin in 1788. It says:

"Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahometan temple with three cuppolas. Others believe that it was constructed by Babar. We see 14 columns of black stone 5 spans high that occupy places within the fortress. Twelve of these columns now bear the interior arcades of the Masjid; two (of the 12) make up the entrance of the cloister. Two others form part of the tomb of a certain Moor. It is related that these columns, or rather the debris of these columns, were brought from Lanka (called Ceylon by the Europeans) by Hanuman, chief of the monkeys." which in French reads as

l'empereur Aurungzeb a détruit la forteresse appelée Ramkot et construit à la même chose placer un temple musulman avec 3 dômes. D'autres indiquent qu'il a été construit par Babar. On peut voir 14 colonnes faites en pierre noire qui soutiennent des découpages. Plus tard Aurungzeb, et certains indiquent que Babar a détruit l'endroit afin d'empêcher des heathens de pratiquer leurs cérémonies.Toutefois ils ont continué à pratiquer leurs cérémonies religieuses dans le places, sachant ceci pour avoir été endroit de naissance de Rama, en le circulant 3 fois et en se prosternant sur la terre..

We see on the left a square platform 5 inches above ground, 5 inches long and 4 inches wide, constructed of mud and covered with lime. The Hindus call it bedi, that is to say, the birth-place. The reason is that here there was a house in which Beschan, (Bishan-Vishnu) took the form of Rama, and his three brothers are also said to have been born. Subsequently, Aurangzeb, or according to others, Babar razed this place down, in order not to give the Gentiles (Hindus) occasion to practice their superstition. However, they continued to follow their superstitious practices in both places, believing it to be the birthplace of Rama."Questions of history

This record reveals that Aurangzeb demolished the Ramkot fortress; that either he, or Babar constructed a Masjid there; the 12 columns of black stone pillars were brought from Lanka; and when veneration of Rama became prevalent after the 17th century, a small rectangular mud platform was built to mark the birthplace of Rama.(History and Geography of India, by Joseph Tieffenthaler, (published in French by Bernoulli in 1785))

However, this account does not explicitly mention the existence of a temple but a mud platform.

Mosque of Babur

In Urdu the name of the Masjid is بابري and the name of Emperor Babur is بابر

Therefore we can derive that Babri Masjid = Babur's Masjid or Masjid (Mosque) of Babur in english. Mustaqbal 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV mauled to peices

Many of the claims regarding the scope of the violence are unsubstantiated. Point of fact, articles by Francis Gautier have pointed out that physical violence against people during the repatriation were minimal. Until I clean it up, the TotallyDisputed Tag needs to be there.I'll need to research a bit in order to present the muslim point of view neutrally, as well as get the facts about the actual extent of the violence allegedlyperpetrated by Hindu nationalists, together with death toll figures.(Netaji 13:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

I have made some edits. I think it's pretty NPOV, but have put a POV-Check tag on it just in case. By the way, the bit about the architecture of the mosque is very good. I like the pics too. Amazing how a rose can grow out of mud,eh? Pity it had to go... (Netaji 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Bots getting better!

I find that a particular editor has edited the page massively with edit summaries like tags/ typos and so on to camouflage the addition/deletion made by him. This is rally sad and a point of introspection: are we building the project or trying to make fun of it! It was really interesting to see a bot revert his edit when he changed thirteen to 31. Bots are intelligent than wikipedians!!! --Bhadani 15:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I just looked at page history and no significant edits have occurred beyond those done before the article was protected. Care to elaborate, since you seem to be 'smarter' than the bot and 'wikipedians' (a contradiction, since you are a wikipedian yourself).(Pusyamitra Sunga 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

I was talking of some earlier edits - before the page was protected. --Bhadani 16:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. Nonetheless, the article has reached some level of NPOV, though I suspect muslims would angrily disagree. What is troubling is the high visibility of the article on the web (google search provides this article as the first hit), so we must be extra careful so as to remain NPOV and not let nutjob fundamentalists (whether muslim or hindutva) mess it up further once the article gets unprotected.(Pusyamitra Sunga 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

I envision wikipedia to emerge as a source of reference instead the wikipedians searching for the references. For this, each one of us should edit with utmost integrity. Regrds. --Bhadani 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In principle, that's what it's supposed to be. In practice, people are lazy, and even though they may get the references later, the text of the article already forms a preconceived bias in their minds. The visibility of a wikipedia article and it's easy accessibility makes it prime grounds for mad mullahs to come and tout their crap. This must be policed by people of good will.(Netaji 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

An information

P. V. Narasimha Rao, the 9th Prime Minister of India, has termed Babari Masjid as “controversial structure” in his book Ayodhya 6 December 1992. The natural presumption is that a section of the government, including him, believed that it was not a Mosque in the conventional sense as the structure perhaps did not conform to the Islamic principles to be designated as a Mosque. However, my knowledge in such matter is rather poor. I would like to learn more. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PV Narasimharao does not seem to have qualification as an Islamic Scholar or an architectural specialist.You seem to be trying to raise the point often raised in Hindutva literature, in a subtle way.The Indian government had begun using this term for reasons perhaps unknown to itself for there has never been any statement from them in this regard.You would have noticed a certain acceptability to calling it Babri mosque after it was felled.Mosques using similar pattern were built in Panipat during Babur's time and there are other mosques in India and other parts of the world that do not have the architectural features non Muslims may associate with a mosque.A mosque cam be as simple as a shed - the only thing important is a place to stand.By the way Rao promised to rebuild the mosque on the same spot in the televised address to the nation that helped in quelling the rioting in that period.

Rushdie 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the position. But, in the course of this you violated a cardinal policy of wikipedia: WP:AGF by presuming that "You seem to be trying to raise the point often raised in Hindutva literature, in a subtle way." But, as you are very new here with very few edits to still fewer pages, so I give you the benefit of doubt in view of WP:BITE. I trust that you shall continue to brighten wikipedia with your insight and thoughtful comments. BTW, your presumption that non-Muslims may not be aware of so many nuisances of Islam are right, but not an absolute truth - many non-Muslims may be aware of the fact that a simple shed would also serve as a Mosque. I would also like to point out that perhaps, your user name, unless it is your personal name, may not conform to the wiki-guidelines as it is a part of a famous name, though I am not sure. Please continue to enrich wikipedia with regular edits. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

rv back to jan 9?

I thought this article was fine back then? It was pretty well balanced. What happened?--D-Boy 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the article is fine now. I think all points of view have been equally well-represented.Netaji 06:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. But, representing all point of views may not make the page encyclopedia. An encyclopedia means the truth and only truth. Perhaps all along we have been wrongly interpreting wikipedia's policy of NPOV. It means the page should be neutral and represent the truth. --Bhadani 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But the truth itself is disputed here. Truth according to whom? Muslims, Hindus, terrorists, Hindutva people, Leftist anti-Hindus, Right-Wing people? Whom? The issue is muddied, and nothing is 100% conclusive. When objective truth itself is absent all presented points of view must be there. Until incontrovertible proof is presented to support any point of view (or none) all points of view must be represented as such, which it has been. The 2 sections clearly say "History according to Hindus" & "History according to Muslims". Objective facts (about the Mosque's architecture, location, demolition etc) have been untainted. So the article is fine as is. No bias is there. Bear in mind also that wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia.Netaji 10:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. --Bhadani 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Disproven Theories

"The Muslim side has been unable to disprove the fact that a Hindu temple existed in the area."

There is nothing that even remotely indicates that in the source. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does.Netaji 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide a quote. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions several arguments for and against the Mandir, indicating a lack of consensus. The tome of the article is partisan in favor of muslims. Hence, the lack of consensus is failure on the part of the partisan. It's possible that this sentence might be construed as original research. Ask Blnguyen what he thinks. If he says original research then by all means remove it.Netaji 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So you can't provide a quote backing that sentence...BhaiSaab ^talk 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you so much, help your Muslim brethren out and find proof there wasn't a temple. Your friend TerryJHo is finding it excruciatingly difficult. He might even be cracking under the pressure.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I found an article on JSTOR on the archaelogical findings in the area that has both Hindu and Muslim arguments; I will be using it to improve this article soon. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'll be watching as always.Netaji 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Every source still states there was a temple under the rubble. The Muslims have not (and will not) been able to find proof the Mosque was built on anything other than a Hindu temple.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All this and still no quote. Amazing. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do I need a quote? Why don't you find proof for the Muslim side? Of course, the ASI found remains of a temple underneath, so I guess we can say "sayonara" to that sentence now anyways. Its unneeded when definite proof has been found.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have posted a cleanup tag on the History section because the vocabulary and organization of the section is really lacking. Also, the section doesn't seem wikified enough. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 12:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Neutral...

Wow... there is a Hindu Mulsim war everywhere !! Anyhow... maybe when u guys are done fighting with each other you should pay attention to the 'fact' that this article is not neutral. It bends heavily towards the Hindu point of view (i think it has been written by one). Its pretty nice till the architecture part but then the whole 'history according to the hindu point of view' stinks of propaganda. This matter can be debated forever... so if we have such a strong representation of the history according to the hindus we should also have a equally strong case put forward from the muslim perspective (i'm sure there is one). Now you can probably start disecting me and my character here but i'm just a regular wikipedia fan who hates to see biased articles !

So maybe this article can be moderated by a hindu and a muslim together.. just to keep the balance.

Ainz

61.246.25.36 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

terrorism

Terrorism needs to be backed up by numerous mainstream sources. The demolition of a building in which nobody was killed is hardly terrorism.Bakaman 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, hostage taking is terrorism. Having said that, if the destruction of Nalanda and Mahabodhi Temple which also encompassed mass slaughter is not terrorism, then this doesn't seem to either. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of mosques wont seems to be terrorism these days. if it was a destruction of any minor threat and if it was a muslim behind it, then it is called terrorism. Please dont try to change the meaning of the word "terrorism" its just not an attribute given to muslims alone.

Pens withdrawn 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

See the definition of terrorism.And btw,Babri was built on a Hindu temple, according to the ASI report. So Babar is the real terrorist by your definition.Bakaman 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror" this is what it is described there. Destroying a masjid which was a symbol of harmony for centuries among muslims and hindus to create communal tensions must be described with a more stronger word than terrorism. Pens withdrawn 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I will just note that when you say "a symbol of harmony for centuries among Muslims and Hindus" you are sort of wrong. You see, Hindus have a deity known as Rama, who was born there and a temple on his birthplace was demolished, so bad blood existed since then, harmony isn't the word I would use. Your stereotyping of Hindutva as random communalist people that only like to call tensions is far from the truth. Hindutvavaadis, for example, sheltered Sikhs during the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, yes, Atal Behari Vajpayee was known for saving Sikhs from Hindu mobs and was commended by Hindutva parties for it. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that this is not an example of terrorism.Bakaman 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call that a consensus. 24.250.173.10 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

most disputed phrase : lets discuss and finalize

"It was destroyed in a well planned move by groups of Hindu extremists(RSS and VHP) in a riot on December 6, 1992"

"It was destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992." --- current version

major problem was with the word "extremists" -- lets agree with "activists" (just for compromise)

next part of the problem is inclusion of group names RSS and VHP. User:Nobleeagle says that- they were not the only group and deletes that part (see the history of the page). But no one denies the fact that they are also involved. And it is also know to everyone that the masjid was destroyed in a well planned move (even in the presence of tight security arranged by central govt of India)

So lets make the phrase as "It was destroyed in a well planned move by groups of Hindu activists(RSS, VHP and others) in a riot on December 6, 1992"

word 'others' is added to address User:Nobleeagle's problem and activist is retained.

Trying to hide these facts in wikipedia doesn't erase the history. It id so stupid to think like that. ----Pens withdrawn 11:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

those who disagree with it, please make your point here. --- Pens withdrawn 11:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

if no one has any other opinion, I am going to make the change on tomorrow. I have already waited five days. Pens withdrawn 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us not do any original research. Please provide any notable references / citations which clearly says the act as a "well planned move". Otherwise, it is going to be a POV. The same applies to the inclusion of different groups. - KNM ^Talk 05:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that one thing is clear- There was a temple and it was demolished by Muslims and a mosque built to symbolize Islam victory over paganism. There are evidence from it from many sources. While the site provides the evidence for first assertion it does not provide any for the second. It may be possible that latter a mosque was constructed on the site.

Two or three propagandists are NOT going to determine what an article says. Tearing down a holy building is extremism AT LEAST if not terrorism (though most would argue it is indeed just that). 24.250.173.10 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Destruction

Can we get a paragraph detailing the destruction of the mosque, and the aftermath of it's destruction.

Agreed. We don't actually say what happened. We jump from the 1940s to the present day. Secretlondon (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

asi report

Criticized by fundamentalist Islamist preachers or criticized by real archaeologists? A bunch of imams whining about the findings of a team of respected archaeologists does not make it controversial.Bakaman 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

::Dear Bakasuprman, Sir..I have seen a common refrain from you very learned scholar , Sir, that makes you blame the other point of view as coming from "bunch of imams whining" and Sir, somewhere I have also seen you say about the "Wakf Boards" that own the Babri Masjid land as "bunch of fundamentalists" etc..So Dear Sir, Please go through the following lines:

• NEW DELHI: The Sangh is a Parivar once again, thanks to the [Archaeological Survey of India's controversial report on Ayodhya http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/181530.cms]." The author of this report is not a very bearded fundamentalist but a mainstream journalist from The Times of India
• Also Sir, the analysis of the peice below did not come through a bearded Muslim fundamentalist but a national newspaper The Hindu
• THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL Survey of India's [report of its excavation of the Babri Masjid site has important failings which render it suspect http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/op/2003/10/14/stories/2003101400160300.htm]. Both in what it includes, and in what it excludes, the report does not address the task to which the High Court directed it, namely to determine whether a mosque and/or a Ram temple existed at that site. The ASI has said that it has discovered the bases of pillars which originally supported the roof of a temple at a layer below the mosque. It adduces the discovery of terracotta figurines at the site to strengthen this claim. And it claims to have discovered a "circular shrine" which it conjectures contained a Sivalinga, which it would have us believe fortifies the claim to a Ram temple at the site. However, in fact the evidence does not indicate that a Ram temple existed at this site. On the contrary, important evidence which the ASI has not properly examined or accounted for includes animal bones and glazed ware, both foreign to a Hindu Ram temple of medieval times.
• Dearest Sir, It does not take a space scientist to understand that the contention that this report was controversial comes from reliable and verifiable sources while sir, your removal of these and ascribing of evidences against your point of view are based on name calling, hardly an encycopedic exercise and attitude. Terminador 03:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the above evidences from third parties the fact that the ASI report is suspect and controversial would remain in the article Terminador 03:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Kannan Srinivasan is not an archaeologist but a freelance journalist. In fact it is not even an article from the Hindu but actually an opinion page. The fact the Indian Mullah Council of America has him as a featured guest makes him more dubious. The times of india report is meaningless, does it give a name of any body of learning or archaeologist? No. It says some independent (a.k.a fringe) people (w/out bothering to name them). The Sunni Waqf Board is the only named group of any kind that has actually criticized the report, and they aren't a respected body on history.Bakaman 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I have seen this happen many times with your edits.Sir, Your name calling "Indian Mullah Council" above is too rampant to ignore and borders on INCIVILITY.

Sir, Above you convinently ignore the fact that the whole Babri Mosque- Ram Janmabhoomi issue leading to the destruction of the mosque by Hindu Fanatics is not only in the realm of archaelogy, it is a part of legal dispute and also a political activism by the Hindu Right wing in India represented by the Sangh Parivar.

There are two parties of the dispute one the Sunni Wakf Board - a Muslim properties trust under the control of the Government and the other are the Hindu Groups represented by the Ram Janmbhoomi Nyas, Now the fact that the Semi - Government owned trust, also being the other party of the dispute has raised allegations against the ASI report being misleading and the fact that the issue has been reported in the media and commentators have discussed it extensively - there is Reliably sourced evidence that there is a controvery on the ASI report..and you should Sir, be kind enough to accept this fact.

Also Sir, It is very frustrating to work with you when you attack the sources Ad-Hominem.The fact that an author is on a Muslim site's (one that you don't have any respects for calling it "Mullah" Council) panel does it make him a little less relevant.You ask the other editors to give hundreds of sources and stand your own defined tests of credibilty when you yourself do not stand on them yourself.Instead of hitting the revert button indiscriminately you could do the other WP editors a favour by doing a simple Google Search and informing yourself first.which I am copying here

As a Human being Sir, I cannot get the fact that this ASI report was controversial on a GOLDEN CERTIFICATE by an authority that you can trust but I can go by news reports and whatever has been discussed in independent media.Now You can go through these.

[Reply may land ASI into trouble - Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/522223.cms]

LUCKNOW: Even before the arguments on the controversial Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report on famous Ayodhya excavations could begin, the ASI seems falling into the 'trap' laid by a battery of Central Sunni Waqf Board (CSWB) counsels and indepedent archaeologists. Already facing a 'perjury' case, the ASI's reply, submitted to the three-member special full bench, may land it in deep trouble.

[Not the last word yet - The Hindu http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2019/stories/20030926005412900.htm]

Competent experts scrutinise the ASI's report on Ayodhya and raise the pertinent question, in the light of the persistent abuse of archaeology by VHP camp followers, whether its conclusions are consistent with what has been discovered at the site.

[ASI excavated more questions than answers in Ayodhya http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/152335.cms]

LUCKNOW: The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) dig at the disputed Ayodhya site just might have succeeded in digging up the Indian equivalent of the ‘Shroud of Turin’. The picture emerging from the information in various ASI reports from 1954 — including the one released this week — remains hazy and vague about a key period in Indian history. More importantly, say scholars, the ASI has failed to shed any light on the site’s link to Lord Rama, the key issue in the entire political controversy.

Sir, I have reasons to believe that you are wasting others energies by either doing biased editing knowingly or Sir, by knowing them fully well and misrepresenting Terminador 04:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Undos by Sir Bakasuprman

Dear Friends, One great contributor Sir Bakasuprman has been reverting edits from other users citing WP:V and WP:ATT, Now it is amply clear that all the edits in this change are verifianle and from reliable sources.If Sir, Bakasuprman has some care for the Wikipedia, he should be able to explain why inspite of all that has been discussed just in the para above , the ASI report on the site excavations in Ayodhya are not controversial.[[11]]

Otherwise, I believe reasons exist that Sir Bakasuprman , has been exhausting other contributors patience by attacking well known facts verifiable through reliable sources instead of informing himself before removing other user's edits.59.177.0.127 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Terminador 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The report was only criticized by Muslim bodies not archaeologists, as has been stated ad nauseam. Also, your use of Hindu "extremists" does not meet WP:ATT. Rather than trolling, and hiding behind IP's to promote Hinduphobic bs like "cult of Rama" indicates that you are merely here for an agenda.Bakaman 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You also seem to be harping on what a bunch of random mullahs and their Pseudo-secular journalist friends wrote, while disregarding the scholarly report and the actual findings of said report. The fact that remains of a temple were found under the rubble.Bakaman 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

>>You also seem to be harping on what a bunch of random mullahs and their Pseudo-secular journalist friends wrote, while disregarding the scholarly report and the actual findings of said report. The fact that remains of a temple were found under the rubble.Bakaman 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

>> The report was only criticized by Muslim bodies not archaeologists Hindu activists nets 46k] Response:

OK, and it has been proved ad nauseam that your above assertion Sir, is 101% baseless and misleading.

In fact , you, Sir, are holding the other Wikipedia contributors and readers of this article at ransom by making them believe that there is just one correct version of events and that too one that comes from the Hindutva fundamentalist point of view.

Read this report from Times of India -Archaeologists dig holes into ASI report

NEW DELHI: The Archaeological Survey of India's excavation report on Ayodhya, suggesting ‘‘a huge structure indicative of remains, which are distinctive features associated with the temples of north India, has been found wanting at many levels by archaeologists and historians.

Archaeologist Suraj Bhan, who visited the site during the excavation, says the report has not ‘‘taken into account certain features of the western wall of the pre-Babri Masjid chamber.

Now Read this too Archaeologists fail to end Ayodhya temple site row

So, When it has been reported that the ASI report has been inconclusive how can you use a language that terms that ASI found "definite proof" of the temple

>>You also seem to be harping on what a bunch of random mullahs and their Pseudo-secular journalist friends wrote..

Response:

It is amply clear Sir, that this dispute is between the Semi Governmental Muslim Trust called the Wakf Board that owns the title deed of the land where the mosque stood.The other party in this dispute is Muslim so whether they are extremists, mullahs or to use your own words borrowed from the Hindutva terminology of terming the traditional secular people as Pseudo Secular - their reactions need as much portrayal as anyone. Unless you are on a gagging spree on Wikipedia and want to portray the issue in your own coloured versions.

It is unfortunate Sir, that you even after spending so much time on Wikipedia have not learnt anything better than Cunningness and exhausting other's patience by your continued postings in favour of the Hindu Right Wing.I sincerely doubt your abilities on writing into Controvesial articles through your blanking of the NPOV.

>> Rather than trolling, and hiding behind IP's to promote Hinduphobic bs like "cult of Rama" indicates that you are merely here for an agenda.

Response:

Well Sir,You know very well that my language even though at times I have not logged on (and hence the fixed Delhi IP) is the same and is understandable from the same sequence.I have not misused my IP to support actions from my user name.

Terminador 03:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

>> Also, your use of Hindu "extremists" does not meet WP:ATT.

Response:

Only if you cared to be circumspect Sir, you can find that your above assertion is indeed once again false.

BBC 1992: Mob rips apart mosque in Ayodhya

A mob of Hindu militants has torn down a mosque and attacked other Muslim targets in the north Indian town of Ayodhya...Hindu extremists have been campaigning to get rid of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya

India on alert for Ayodhya demolition anniversary

Security forces across India are on high alert for the 10th anniversary of the demolition of a mosque by Hindu extremists that triggered some of the country's worst sectarian violence.

I believe Mr. Bakasuprman, Sir, from the sources that have been specifically marked in WP:ATT and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles , that it is clear that this was a mob of Hindu Extremists that destroyed the mosque.If your intentions were sacred Mr.Bakaman Sir, you would indeed have read other reliable sources like this Case Western University paper that said "On December 6, 1992, the secular foundation of the Indian State col-lapsed, as a mob of over 200,000 Hindu extremists, clad in saffron head-bands, tore down and demolished the Babri Mosque, a long-standing Mus-lim edifice located in the northern town of Ayodhya."

In the light of above sources including the BBC and CNN - see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and others News and Journals found on internet, Hindu Extremists, should be the term used, though this was initially not a change that I made in the article Terminador 04:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not read WP:ATT or the perhaps more relevant policy WP:WTA, which notes that words like "extremist", are not to be used in a dispassionate narrative voice. You also vandalized the summary of the report, choosing only to broadcast the opinions of a bunch of random left-wing columnists. The obvious conclusion is that your version is just a bunch of links and a few handpicked mullah's opinions, while the old version I edit actually discusses the report while not giving undue weight to the opinions of political groups like Waqf Board and the Rss.Bakaman 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha, Sir, Your futile and baseless excuses on some pretext or others and continued gagging of the facts pertaining to all substantial points of view hardly hide behind your crafty sentences like the one above.Yes, I have "obviously" read the ATT and perhaps the equally (not more relevant as you would say above) WTA and I stand a firmer ground in proving my edits with verifiable reliable sources while You , Sir, have hardly contributed anything more than the name callings of "handpicked mullah's opinions" and "random left-wing columnists". I believe Sir, you need a mentor, who can teach you that it is not always the best policy to attack sources with the same perspective as that of a religious right wing movement Sangh Parivaron a neutral space like Wikipedia.Terminador 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of sources not using the word controversial.

[12], [13], [14]. Hmm... lets take a look at the tribune chandigarh. The Waqf Board and AIMPLB are the only prominent critics noted in all the papers provided on the web. I fail to see why you blank the note on the actual conclusion of the ASI report while soapboxing for an op-ed columnist. I dont need a wikistalking WP:SPA to tell me what I can, will, or can't do on wiki.Bakaman 23:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Bhan and Habib were criticized in the indian express.Bakaman 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And coincidentally Bakasuprman Sir, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the disclaimer at the end of the article "(The author is a freelance journalist)" Terminador 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say, dear Bakasuprman, that you were pwnd. I've been waiting for months for someone who has as much time on their hands as you to challenge your biased garbage and expose you for the fraud you are. Kudos to Terminador. And a big HAHAHA to you. 24.250.131.113 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you didnt catch the tongue-in-cheek nature of the link, it is merely a testament to your ineptitude. Hindu activists is used in reputable sources much more often than "extremists" (even when a gsearch would also include your LeT and Saudi Islamodainiks). Hindu activists nets 46k to Hindu extremists netting 33k.Bakaman 02:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because some sources gloss over the fact that it indeed was extremism doesn't prove your point. It just proves that some sources tend to use a term less likely to annoy the likes of you. Just as some groups are called terrorist by some and militants, extremists, fundamentalists, etc. by others doesn't change the fact that they are, indeed, terrorists. When referring to Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and basically anyone in India not Hindu, you are the first to go with the terrorist interpretation, as I have personally viewed some of your "work". The fact that thousands use the term extremist (and if you check one of the BBC links, even a Hindu priest from Ayodhya) makes the usage here valid. It therefore supersedes the term "activists". 24.250.182.41 12:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

noting a source

Kristin M. Romey, Flashpoint Ayodhya in Archaeological Ethics, (Karen D. Vitelli, John Stephen Colwell-Chanthaphonh Eds.) Rowman Altamira, 2006, ISBN: 075910963X. Doldrums 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The what now?

The text reads ‘The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari records that Babar's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi’." - Why are we quoting non-existant memoirs? The only memoirs of the era are the Ta'rikh-e Rashidi and the baburnama, neither of which contain the previously quoted text. Explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.55.146 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Why is there not actually any content in this article describing the destruction of the Mosque? Kind of a big thing to be missing, it just jumps from the 40s to the present day. Also the actual text of this article is utter garbage, it really shows that all the effort here went into pov-pushing instead of actual writing. I will be adding copy-edit and cleanup tags to the article as soon as I can edit it. --PatLarsen 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat inactive, but I will try and help you out. The history is contentious, and basically the reason for destruction, ergo it is a large (in your view too large) part of this article. As for sources, show me which sections are needing, and I will attempt to source them. Thanks for taking the initiative.Bakaman 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Important further reading Comment

I think it is important to have a further section on this article, like relevant links, citing how many hundereds of Hindu temples have gone down in Muslim countries compared to one measly mosque in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.64.106 (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is about the "measly" mosque in India, which is why it has sections about its destruction. Destruction of other teples are not really relevant to this article. Feel free to put sections (with reliable sources, of course!) about the "many hundreds of Hindu temples [which] have gone down in Muslim countries" in the article about the temples which went down (if they are notable enough to have an artcile). It may be worth noting that this "measly" temple was one of the largest in Uttar Pradesh, and about a fifth of the Indian population are Muslims (compared to what? in Muslim countries). Joshua Issac (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Please check the images posted on this article. Several of these are images of some other monuments and not the Babari masjid - especially the images of the interior. I had visited Babari Masjid in 1991 with my family. The interiors of the monument were absolutely plain, with no carvings or inscriptions in Arabic. Also, it was covered in white plaster, with no ornate decorations of any sort. Please verify the images with Archaeological Survey of India or some other reliable sources rather than this so called reuters reporter, which I am sure is a fake.

Last edited at 16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about Edit Deletion

I am a college professor attempting to assign Wikipedia edits gleened from peer reviewed scholarly journals. One of my students, EmilyEllis09, had her edit reverted with the comment "POV. Please discuss on talk page." Can you clarify how the entry violated the neutral point of view policy and help me understand the process of wikipedia editing better. --Ellencavanaugh (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Any significant addition to a controversial site should be discussed first, although I wouldn't have deleted this simply because it pushes a particular viewpoint. Controversial articles are bound to have differing points of view expressed, and so long as minority viewpoints are not overstated, neutral point of view can be maintained. However, there are a number of sylistic elements that count against the editor, making the edit sound more partisan than it actually is. It is important to maintain a neutral tone in controversial articles that state the facts and do not editorialise, either explicity or implicitly. The edit must be seen as an improvement in the quality of the article's information rather than a political point-scoring exercise. Personally, I would have encouraged a rewrite rather than total deletion of the first section. For example, saying 'However, Sarvepalli Gopal, a Hindu scholar, offers some alternative explanations' is not needed. The opening should say 'The presence of non-Islamic carvings on the pillars of the Babri Masjid can be explained by the use of Hindu craftsmen hired to build the mosque left inscriptions behind, and also portions of other buildings surrounding the mosque site were used to build it.' And then attribute the referencing. EmilyEllis09's edit implies that a Hindu scholar's work is especially noteworthy. In furthering a Hindu claim this encorages the edit to be seen as biased.

But the other section should be deleted. Saying there is/was a general British bias against Hindus and a deliberate spread of aprocryphal historical information for political purposes is extremely controversial and would require more referencing than a small part of a single journal article that isnt accessible to most Wikipedia editors. In order to support this claim of British-wide bias and behaviour, the key sections of the text from the article should be inserted into the referencing, so that the claim can be properly assessed. Because the claim is so controversial and the support for the claim is so limited, this should definitely have been discussed on the Talk page in order to minimise the risk of instant deletion. It could also be interpreted that failure to explain or defend the controversial position on the Talk page is tacit acceptance that the edit came from a non-neutral point of view and would never be accepted by most other editors. Mdw0 (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Mistakes

Reaction of DEMOLATION?Please,it's demolition.

Deepak (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Joshua Issac (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Babur

It is generally thought that the Mosque was built by Babur after demolishing the Rama temple, because an inscription on the mosque records his name. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary (Babur Nama), the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is also alleged that the Mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building.

Part of the paragraph was removed as it had no source and was not neutral. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Riots

I watched a video (by a western source) that documented the Babri mosque demolition, and it claimed that most of the riots that broke out were targeted towards Muslims. I'm not sure if its the truth or not, but might be worth looking into. There's only one sentence here which only says 'riots were broken out' but doesn't give details of who was predominantly affected by the riots, or any other details such as main cities/states of the riots, etc. --digitwoman (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

A few pages which could become sources: http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/Babri/babri_masjid.htm http://pakistantimes.net/2005/02/04/kashmir5.htm

Joshua Issac (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't want any bias Sources here would we. I don't think any pakistani sources will be nuteral. please dont add the above as the pakisatnis have always tried to potray India as anti muslim and being a muslim i thank Alla that he made me an indian than a pakistani.

Mannan Burhan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.10.20 (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The second source looks reliable. Information taken from it will be attributed to the source if it is put in the article,; e.g. "According to Pakistani Times, this and that happened, ...". While this source may not be neutral it can still be used to show a viewpoint. Please remember that Pakistan is a country with a lot of people - some may try to portray India as anti-Muslim but I really don't think all of them will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Issac (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some resources

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1942725,00.htmlMughalnz (talk)

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/2009112414593176363.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8376755.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/india-babri-mosque-violence-report

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gRlNDzA652rwzZ8TExAc06KiIq_Q

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1124/p06s04-wosc.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aKUCmGe.WP5k

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSDEL486832

http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200911/2751412.htm?desktop

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/25/stories/2009112557980100.htm

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/25/stories/2009112558130100.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "Hindu nationalists"

In the section titled, 'Demolition of Babri Masjid', it refers to the mob that demolished the mosque as "Hindu nationalists". I think a more neutral word to use would be "Hindu extremists". Using "hindu nationalists", we're giving the impression that nationalists, who were Hindu, wanted to destroyed it.Sridharrao (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Sridharrao

In the article, the congregation of Hindus in Ayodhya on 6th Dec 1992 is described as a political rally. However, it is beyond doubt and a commonly known fact that the rally was part of a nationwide movement by Hindus to bring awareness and solidify support for a Ram Temple on the disputed structure. The support for the this movement, commonly known as Ram Janmabhoomi Andalon or Ayodhya movement, was widespread. Please remove the reference of political rally from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmohata (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

After a few edits over the last couple of days I believe I have made a decent attempt at a cleanup. I believe the peacock terms have been removed and there now a balanced POV. The overall tone of the article favours neither side and presents the facts in a balanced manner. This achieves NPOV, because not every section or line in a contentious article can possibly be NPOV in and of itself. As long as the opposing viewpoints are dealt with clearly and in a fair proportion, then overall NPOV is maintained. What IS lacking here are citations. I also agree it would be good to have a few more details regarding the events on the day of destruction. Mdw0 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Demolition of Babri Masjid

I am surprised to just find a line about Demolition of Babri Masjid, an important event of post-independence, especially considering its aftermath on the very fabric of India, an historical event like this deserves more. Thanks! --Ekabhishek^talk 06:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I believe the Demolition of the Babri Masjid should have its own article. Leftsideend (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I came to this article for the sole purpose of finding out about the demolition. In fact, I would think that for non-Indian audiences, the demolition is probably the point of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.153 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actual Demolition

I have added few referenced facts about the Babri Mosque#Demolition Adi4094 (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have images of the Babri Mosque miraculously disappeared

We had some images linking to the main article. All these images have disappeared from English version but are available elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.179.9 (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [15]

These images were found in the older versions of Wikipedia such as the ones hosted here: [16]

Any idea ? Can we sense erasing history here again? 81.100.179.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Semi-protection

This page is begging for semi-protection. Zealots are using this page to provoke their opponents by making a mess of what is otherwise an informative and useful article. If people cant accept there are two sides to the Ayodhya debate then the barriers WILL go up. Mdw0 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right!!Adi4094 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's not right, I think we should stick to the true sequence of events, even if it is provocative to a section of editors. We are creating an encycolpedia, not a report to appease a section of editors. Main stream media (time.com) mentions Kar Sevaks being responsible for the demolition.[17], they were not participants of political rally that turned violent but they were actually people who went to Ayodhya for the sole purpose of inaugrating the construction of the temple - the ceremony of which is called as "Shilanyas", I think - If you see how BBC describes it, and BBC is just one source there are many other which say that it wasn't a rally but they had "vowed to replace it with a Rama Temple" "Militant Hindus demolished the 16th-century Babri mosque in 1992, vowing to replace it with a Hindu temple to Rama. They say they were justified in destroying the mosque because there used to be a Hindu temple marking Rama's birthplace on that spot before. The mosque was torn down by supporters of the hardline Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Council), the Shiv Sena party and then-opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). " See http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/MakingIndiaHindu.htm [18][ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Babri+demolition+shilanyas+nic+in+site%3Aparliamentofindia.nic.in&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=bZs&sa=2 Indian Parliament Discussions] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDunhumble (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection

{{editsemiprotected}}

In light of the expected verdict on the issue on the 24th of September, and as the issue is controversial, I request semi-protection.

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

However, after checking, I see that the article is already semi-protected... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

Hi, I saw that this page has been inactive for a while, so I archived it. See the archive if you want to see the discussion. If you wish to add anything, please copy the relevant bits from the archive and paste it here, then add your comment(s). Thank you. Joshua Issac (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm learning about Wikipedia. I want to read about hotly discussed topics. 59.163.32.26 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

MUSLIMS VERSION OF EVENTS Was there a temple beneath the Babri Masjid? Having examined the records of excavations conducted by Prof. B.B.Lal, former Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in the seventies at the Ayodhya site, preserved at the Purana Qila office of the ASI, a team of four historians and archaeologists came to the conclusion that there was no proof of it. They explained their findings and conclusions at the press conference held at the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), New Delhi, on October 23,1992. The experts: Prof. R.S. Sharma, former Chairman of the ICHR; Prof. M. Athar Ali (Rtd.) Department of History, Aligarh University; Prof. Suraj Bhan (Rtd.), Professor of History, Kurukshetra University; and Prof. D.N. Jha, Professor of History, University of Delhi. They had earlier been to Ayodhya and made on-the-spot studies of the Ayodhya excavation site.

The new material evidence relates to excavations done by Prof. B.B. Lal over 11 years ago in areas in the vicinity of the Babri Masjid. Prof. Lal has since published a series of documents on results of his studies. He made an announcement recently that brick base found in the vicinity of the masjid could be meant for sustaining pillars and therefore suggest the existence of a temple-like structure south of the Babri masjid. The BJP is taking it as the basic evidence for the existence of a temple where the masjid stands.

The experts examined the site notebook and register of antiquities connected with the Ayodhya excavations, studied the drawings, plans, photographs, and excavated material and found that the recent claim of Prof. Lal regarding the existence of a mandir-like structure was unsubstantiated. The existence of a brick base for pillars does not prove that it could be of a temple. If there was a temple, at least some articles related to the temple could have been found during the excavations. No such evidence had been found by Prof. Lal.

Even in his own report submitted to the Archaeological Survey of India in 1976-77 and in 1979-80, Professor Lal had stated “several later medieval brick-and-kankar lime floors have been sighted, but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest.” The later medieval period indicated 17th-l8th centuries. If remains of a structure of 17th-l8th centuries, are found outside the masjid area, how do they prove the presence of a temple that was supposedly built in the 11th century and destroyed in the early 16th century? the experts asked. They also point out that the excavations did not reveal any pillars, or roof material of the supposed temple at the site where the brick pillar base stood. The mere presence of pillar bases does not make out a case for the existence of a temple.

Interestingly, pieces of glazed ware pottery were unearthed from the trenches above the floors associated with the brick-pillar base structure and immediately below the general floor of the Babri Masjid. It is an accepted fact that Islamic glazed-ware pottery has never been used in Hindu temple. The presence of the glazed pottery shows that as in other parts of Ayodhya, this site also was inhabited by Muslims around the thirteenth century, and the pillar structure could have been anything but a temple, had already fallen down and gone out of use before the Muslim habitation.

Now about the black basalt stone-pillars used in the four arches of the Masjid. VHP argues that they formed part of the temple which was destroyed. Similar pillars are also found in the graveyard nearby. All these differ in their style and diameter and their total lack of stratigraphic association rules out the possibility of their being an integral part of any single structure. Such pillars are also found in other parts of Ayodhya in completely unrelated contexts. Besides, the pillar bases existing at a distance of about 60 feet to the south of the Babri Masjid structure are in alignment with the pillars used in the Babri Masjid. They could have been part of a veranda or a dwelling place or an animal shed and are of no importance as such structures could be found in the area even now. Thus, archeological evidence so far suggests the existence of Muslim habitation proximal to the Masjid from the 13th century onwards. [Courtesy, Nation and the World, New Delhi, Nov. 16, 1992] There is no historical record stating that the site had a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. TOI. The earliest mention of the Babri water well was in a two line reference to the Mosque in the Gazette of Faizabad District 1918 which says “There are no significant historical buildings here, except for various Buddhist shrines, the Babri Mosque is an ancient structure with a well which both the Hindus and Mussalmans claim has Miraculous properties.” The Babri Mosque was a large imposing structure with three domes, one central and two secondary. It is surrounded by two high walls, running parallel to each other and enclosing a large central courtyard with a deep well, which was known for its cold and sweet water. On the high entrance of the domed structure are fixed two stone tablets which bear two inscriptions in Persian declaring that this structure was built by one Mir Baqi on the orders of Babur. The walls of the Babri Mosque are made of coarse-grained whitish sandstone blocks, rectangular in shape, while the domes are made of thin and small burnt bricks. Both these structural ingredients are plastered with thick chunam paste mixed with coarse sand.

When did the Ayodhya controversy erupt? According to recorded history, Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Bank who was Babur's viceroy in that region. There is no historical record stating that the site had a temple that was destroyed to build a mosque. The mosque was known by several names, including Masjid-i Janmasthan, Jami Masjid, Sita Rasoi Masjid and so on. The District Gazetteer of Faizabad documents that the mosque was a place of worship for both religions. Incidents of communal violence over the ownership of the site started from 1853 and the British government tried to resolve it in 1859 by erecting a fence that divided the mosque into an inner and outer court. Hindus were allowed to construct a raised platform (chabutra) in the outer court, while the inner court was to be used only by Muslims.

Did the two-nation theory have an impact on the mosque? It is well known that the two-nation theory worked as a major divide between both communities in most parts of the country. The mosque did not remain untouched, as the site started witnessing communal riots since early 1910s. A major riot erupted in 1934 when police had to be called in to control the situation.

What was the 1949 controversy about? In December 1949, the controversy reached new heights when mahants decided to recite the Ramayana in front of the mosque. It was later reported by the devotees who had gathered for that recitation that the image of Lord Ram appeared inside the mosque. But the administration and the Muslim community were not impressed as it was alleged that idols were placed inside by Hindus who entered the mosque by breaking its locks. Because of the controversy, the place was locked up.

Who filed the first title suit? The first suit was filed in 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad, a shopkeeper in Ayodhya. The suit was filed in Faizabad civil court, seeking a ruling that would grant permission to perform puja at the site. The second suit was filed by Paramhans Tamchandra Das, again in 1950, and it sought the same injunction. This suit was later withdrawn. In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara filed a title suit, claiming ownership of the site. This prompted the UP Sunni Ce-ntral Board of Waqfs to file the fourth suit in 1961. The fifth suit was filed in 1989. With one of these suits having been withdrawn, four title suits were pending in the Faizabad civil court. In 1989, these suits were transferred to Allahabad HC. TOI

Ancient Sanskrit Documents

IT IS surprising that the VHP has not been able to provide even a single ancient Sanskrit document in support of its claim that there had been an ancient belief in Ram-janmasthan at Ayodhya. On the contrary evidence suggests that reverence of Ayodhya as the birthplace of Ram began not before the l8th century. The only document in support of its claim is the Skanda Purana, which abounds in interpolations. At best, the core of it was compiled not earlier than 16th century. This Purana has a chapter extolling the greatness of Ayodhya (Ayodhya Mahatmya) which appears towards the end of the work and which clearly is a later addition. Even if we accept the location of the birthplace of Rama as given in the Ayodhya Mahatmya, it does not coincide with that of the Babri Masjid. According to the Skanda Purana, the birthplace of Rama is 500 dhanus (910 meters) westward of Laumash and 1009 dhanus (1835 meters) eastward of Vighneshvara. Laumash is identical with the present Rinamochana Ghat. Thus, if we follow the Skanda Purana directions, the birthplace of Rama should be located somewhere west, in the vicinity of the Brahmakunda, close to the bed of the Saryu. So even accounting to the Skanda Purana the birthplace of Rama cannot be located on the site where the Babri Masjid stands. Mughal Records, AD 1528

A PIECE of authentic recorded history regarding the Masjid is the Persian inscription put on the Masjid immediately upon its construction in AD 1528-29. In that inscription nowhere has it been mentioned that the Masjid was built after destroying a temple or upon the site of a temple. If Mir Baqi who constructed the Masjid had destroyed the temple, he would have considered it a meritorious act and would have mentioned it in the inscriptions. Tulsidas, AD 1575

WITHIN FIFTY years of the construction of the Babri Masjid, the celebrated poet Tulsidas composed the Ram Charit Manas (1575-76), written in Avadhi. Is it possible to believe that Tulsidas would not have given vent to his grief had the very birth-site of Lord Rama had been ravaged, its temple razed to the ground and a mosque built in its place? If Ayodhya was sacred to the Hindus, he should have included it among the places of pilgrimage. Tulsidas suggests Prayag as one of the principal places of pilgrimage and not Ayodhya. In other words, even in the latter half of the 16th century Ayodhya was not considered as one of the holy places. A’in-i-Akbari, AD 1598

THE EARLIEST mention of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage is in the A’in-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl who completed it in AD 1598. Abul Fazl includes Ayodhya among the important places of pilgrimage in India. In the chapter on Ayodhya, he gives a detailed account of an extensive area called Ayodhya where Ramnavmi festival is celebrated and which is esteemed to be one of the holiest places of antiquity. He even mentions small details such as two Jewish priests lying buried in Ayodhya. Yet there is not the remotest reference to Ram’s birthsite, let alone to any mosque built on it. William Flinch, AD 1608

THE BRITISH historian William Flinch, who stayed in India during AD 1608-11 gives a detailed description of Ayodhya and the castle of Ramchand (Ramkot), “extensive enough to undertake a search for gold.” Though he does not mention the birthplace of Rama, he gives a detailed account of the place where the ashes of Ram are kept. “Some two miles on the further side of the river in a cave of his with a narrow entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a man may well lose himself there if he taketh not better heed; where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither resort many from all parts of India, which carry from thence in remembrance certain grains of rice as black as gunpowder which they say have been preserved ever since.” Had the place been considered sacred for being the birthplace of the Lord Rama, it should have become one of the places of pilgrimage. Instead the place where his ashes are kept was considered a place of veneration. Sujan Rai Bhandari, AD 1695

THE KHULASTU-I TAWARIKH, the first geographical account of holy places in India, written by Sujan Rai Bhandari in 1695-96, specifically mentions that the “Mathura temple of Keshav have been destroyed by Aurangzeb who had a Masjid built in its place.” But while describing Ayodhya, he says that, “in Hindu books it is called Ayodhya, the birthplace of Ramchand... As this city was the residence of Ramchand, it is held to be one of the holiest places... In the town there are tombs of Shish (Seth), the son of Lord Adam (peace of God be on him!) and Ayub (Job) the prophet – both places of pilgrimage to the Muhammadans.” Ram Chaturman, AD 1759

ANOTHER WRITER Ram Chaturman, who wrote his Chahar Gulshan in AD 1759-60 describes Ayodhya as “one of the select places of worship, the birthplace of Raja Ramchandar, son of Jasrat (Dasharat) who was one of the ten avatars.” The entire place was considered to be the ruins of Ramachand’s fortress, which included the palace and several other buildings and structures.

Thus, until 220 years after the construction of the Babri Masjid, there was no suggestion anywhere in recorded history that there was a precise site of Ram’s birth, where the holy structure had been destroyed and a Masjid built upon it.

[Courtesy, Nation and the World, New Delhi, Nov. 16, 1992] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.58.169 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mayank6002, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add information regarding verdict of Babri Mosque demolition which is coming out on 30 September 2010. Please add whole story of how it got delayed due to supreme court rulings and then how supreme court of India lifted the ban on verdict which is to be given by Allahabad High Court in 30 September 2010.

Mayank6002 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added some of this to the Ayodhya debate article. Can you provide more specific points you want to be included, and/or sources for the same? (For the record, the 30 September verdict is not regarding the demolition, but is about the title cases filed ~50 years ago) SPat ^talk 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest Edits

The latest edits on the opening paragraph are not appropriate. The anonymous editor hasn’t made any effort to address concerns, so I'm going to make it clear as to why the edits don’t work.

Firstly, there is excessive detail that makes the opening paragraph lose the pointed style opening paragraphs need. This information needs to be in the appropriate areas further down, if at all.

Second, it adds a lot of off-topic information. This is not the Ayodhya Debate page, it is the Babri Mosque page. Therefore the opening paragraph, and most of the other paragraphs must be about the mosque itself, not what was there before the mosque.

Third, the referencing is poor. There is nothing indicating academic backup of the claims for the prevailing temple, no references for the later court orders or Muslim unrest. A request for referencing about the claimed religious demographics of Ayodhya resulted in a useless link to the Indian Census page which gives no information at all. The claim that there have been no Muslim prayers at the site since 1947 would definitely require a reference.

Fourth, the history information is hopelessly out of order. It moves from ancient times to 1992 to construction in 1527 to 1984 to independence in 1947 then 1989 then back to 1528. Is the editor deliberately trying to cause confusion?

Fifth, the edits reproduce information from other sections. The history information is better expressed, and more evenly expressed in the History section.

Also, the translation of ‘Mosque i Janmasthan’ is ‘Mosque of the Birthplace’, NOT birthplace of Lord Rama, otherwise Krishna Janmasthan would translate as Krishna Birthplace of Lord Rama

I understand the editor may be a passionate supporter of whatever is their cause, and that they have added what they believe to be true. However, the edit does not belong in the opening paragraph and most of it is either repetition or it doesn’t belong in this article. They do their point of view in the debate no favours by constantly adding these edits back in. I am happy to discuss these concerns with the anonymous editor, with a view to finding out what the aim of edits are, but the constant re-insertion of poor material without discussion can’t continue. Mdw0 (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting there, although the Origins of the dispite section really needs to be combined with the Hindu Account in the History section. Mdw0 (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Architecture ..." section does not have a single in-line citation. Burden of proof is on the author. Nshuks7 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Partial readdition of text

From the first paragraph...

The Babri Mosque (Hindi: बाबरी मस्जिद, Urdu: بابری مسجد, translation: Mosque of Babur), was a mosque in Ayodhya, a city in the Faizabad district of Uttar Pradesh, on Ramkot Hill ("Rama's fort"). It was destroyed in 1992 when a political rally developed into a riot involving 150,000 people,[1] despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that the mosque would not be harmed.[2][3] [2] organized by the Bharatiya Janata Party and allied organizations.[3] More than 2,000 Muslims were killed in ensuing riots in many major Indian cities including Mumbai and Delhi.[4]

...a part of the sentence is missing before the second footnote from the newindpress.com reference. According from the history it may have been a some sort of collateral damage or was part of a sentence that is supposed to be deleted. Can please someone have it checked? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

[| Edits done] are not PVO

As explained on your discussion page. Please revert the changes..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an attempt to insert your POV. The source doesn't say anything about misused excuses etc. Please stop using Wikipedia to push your agenda. —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand correctly, but there are no justification of bomb blasts and are you not trying to put word "reasons" instead of "excuses"? I can not believe what I am reading. Source here http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/editorial4ijcjs.html.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and if you can not follow our policies and guidelines, this is not the place for you. Find exact sources for each sentence and then discuss here and add them, do not provide any random links or your original research and POV as justifications. Wikipedia articles do not qualify as sources either. —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources are mentioned in Main articles and I don't need to copy sources here. Please explain out how the main sources are random links. Please also explain how justifying bomb blasts on Babari Mosque demolition is not an excuse but is "reason".

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/blast-a-revenge-for-babri-mail/361167/1 please read carefully. Please understand what I am trying to convey is that the matter is mentioned in the main article and there is no need to repeat sources here, and then going about maintaining references when references change and so on. That is why the links. Also please avoid saying justifications of terrorist activities as "reasons", it is against human rights of all those who are innocent and affected badly. To say that it was an excuse is common sense, not POV, and no one can justify bomb blasts on these kind of arguments..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another source here http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?268602. I can not believe that justifying Bomb blasts and killing people is called "reasonable", or is it a standard of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, if you want your edits to stand they need to be changed, both in tone and in balance. Your tone is too partisan. Such a tone makes factual items seem NPOV, even when they're not. You need to adjust your tone so that it doesnt try to make one group of people seem like they're all innocent downtrodden angels and the other like they're all terrorist devils. Also, your information is not balanced. You present only one side of a debate and not the other. Even if they were properly referenced, such edits create a politically unbalanced article, and in a controversial article such as this, that imbalance is more than enough reason to remove the edits. This is not a place for winning political arguments, it is somewhere to provide information on the mosque and what happened to it. Any writing on the aftermath should be minimal and cannot be politically partisan. Also, your attitude to referencing is poor. You cannot assume links in a totally different article is sufficient - its not, and never has been. You, yourself, need to provide good and relevant sources for your edits. If you are too lazy to back up your edits properly, you can expect them to be deleted. Mdw0 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please notice that the changes I have done are only a small aftermath part of the entire page, and does not affect perhaps 99% of the content. As it is, the aftermath in Pakistan/Bangladesh was anti-Hindu and one can not ignore it, and its complete absence is a bit puzzling for me. I will do the referencing properly so the facts are presented well. I am fine with the comments and have not indulged in any edit wars if you notice in the main section. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your addition, as a new section, still needs referencing and appropriate tone. You are correct to say a sentence or two generally doesnt require such stringent application of the citation rules, but when you add a new section and that new section sounds too politically partisan, then it will attract extra attention. If the aftermath is to be mentioned, then it should reflect the all the rioting, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but also in India. Saying the rioting was all anti-Hindu is not accurate, as this escalation into violence is part of a tit-for-tat struggle thats gone on for centuries. No-one is all innocent or all guilty, but that is what your edits imply, through their tone and lack of balance. It implies a general hostility towards Hindus in general, rather than a reaction against the people who destroyed the mosque - a reaction which then escalated into unacceptable violence on both sides. Your edit cannot be a judgement on the morals or motivations of a particular side in the debate, and its especially problematic if it reflects a political viewpoint. What is needed is a presentation of the facts - not judgement or interpretation or editorial.

I also think the edits to the History section with quotes from the Liberhan Commission need to be further down in the section on the Liberhan Commission's findings. Mdw0 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are misquoting me here. I never said riots were anti hindu and 2000 people died - there I have not divided the dead into religions.

It is a fact that reactions in Pakistan and Bangladesh were completely anti-Hindu, and you saying that the tone is one-sided is a reflection of the fact, and I would like to point out that please don't ignore human rights of Hindus, and ignore it by calling it one sided. If you have information, included it in the section with relevant sources. To me, it is obvious that the aftermath in Pakistan and Bangladesh was completely anti-Hindu, and I have provided very reliable sources to prove authenticity. If the contents look one sided to you, please think why before shooting the messenger. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the section above you said 'the aftermath in Pakistan/Bangladesh was anti-Hindu' as though all Hindus are the same, and that all of the reaction was against all Hindus rather than targetted at the more militant Hindus who wrecked the Babri Mosque. You are proposing to read the mind of every person who reacted against the destruction. There were lots of people who demonstrated against the destruction who were not denying human rights - they were protesting against what they saw as vandalism. Of course there are and were extremist idiots on both sides who take any chance to express their violent tendencies, but they did not constitite 100%. It is most definitely one-sided and unbalanced if you mention only deaths and rioting in Muslim countries and ignore the pro-Hindu anti-Muslim violence which occured in India at the same time. The aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Mosque was a CYCLE of violence. If violence is general and perpetrated by both sides, when you single out a particular group in a particular place for condemnation without mentioning any other incidents then you are telling partial truths. It doesnt matter that what you've put is factual - the selective reporting of certain facts to push a political viewpoint is not NPOV. If you are not motivated by a political viewpoint, I apologise for my assumption, but your edits invite this assumption. Such unbalanced editing is not just inaccurate, it invites retaliation from the other side of the debate. In such a controversial article, balance is crucial and must be maintained. I invite you to reconsider and rewrite your edit to include the more general rioting across the whole region, to reduce the current focus on anti-Hindu Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and to use a more neutral tone. Mdw0 (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't try to 'balance' what happened to Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh by what happened to Muslims in India. We are not talking about social niceties, we are talking about riots and there can not be any justification/balance about riots least in anti-Hindu reactions in Islamic countries because of some excuses. I have neither tried to justify riots in India nor outside, and your push for 'balancing' riots by giving more weight to anti-Muslim riots in India, supports this understanding that riots in Pakistan and Bangladesh were justified somehow, or may be I am reading this wrong.

If you have information about anti-Muslims riots or anti-Hindu riots then please mention it in the article. The facts as per me is that reactions in Pakistan and Bangladesh were completely biased against Hindus, and pushing me to 'balance' it is against human rights of Hindus who have suffered in those places. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning something happened doesnt mean you support it or that its justified. Obviously rioting in one place doesnt balance one somewhere else. I'm not talking about morally balancing the riots or their justification - I'm talking about a balanced article, which has a neutral POV. If you present only one side when there is a cycle of violence then you are lying by omission, and you are doing it to further your obvious political viewpoint. The rules disallowing such imbalance on Wikipedia are obvious to anyone who bothers to have even a cursory look. Looking at your talk here and your edits, I'm starting to wonder if you even have the slightest idea of what NPOV means. It means writing from a politically disinterested viewpoint. If you're incapable of that, then your edits cant stand, no matter how truthful you believe them to be. Also, please note this is the Babri Mosque article, and its meant to be about the mosque, not the aftermath. Try editing the Ayodhya debate article or the Demolition of Babri Masjid article where these riots may appropriately have more prominence, and are already balanced by other viewpoints.Mdw0 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hindu account section need revision

The hindu account section have some piece of information which are irrelevant and does not clearly give out the Hindu's stand in the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan.jsr (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The extended addition to this section is politically partisan, non POV, non-referenced and full of inflammatory material. The tone is anything but neutral. If the point of this was to make political points, I hope those points make this editor feel like a winner, but such material must be edited properly if it is to stay in a Wikipedia article. There is some useful information here about what actually happened on the day. If any proper references can be found, it should go into the Destruction section. Some other points about the lack of historical evidence for a temple complex at Ayodhya might go into the Muslim Account section. Since there is a section for the Muslim Account, it is not appropriate to have a such a long and extended refutation of the Hindu account. All the quotes need to be referenced, and currently, none of the quotes are referenced. Also, some referencing will need to be from neutral sources. A partisan Hindu publication is unlikely to provide the neceessary backup for controversial statements made in a controversial article. Please do not take this deletion as a personal attack on the editor yourself or the editor's political viewpoint, which is perfectly valid in and of itself - its just that a political POV cannnot be the basis of a Wikipedia article, especially in one as controversial as this one. Please try again. Mdw0 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose that the page Ram Janmabhoomi be merged into this one. Although the two concepts are theoretically different, the material in "Ram Janmabhoomi" is currently a subset of the material here, and there is no unique material that I know of that would be inappropriate to this page. I would suggest that a section be created in this article to cover the "Ram Janmabhoomi" concept in slightly greater detail than it currently is, and any unique material in the "Ram Janmabhoomi" article could be covered therein. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The concept of Ram Janmabhoomi is different, Babri Masjid was a physical structure. I don't see any logic in this proposal at all. -sarvajna (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It could be other way around, but it is not necessary either. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment We do have to do something about the proliferation of pages on Ayodhya because they have tons of stupid errors (like "Vishva Hindu Parishad" supposedly in 1949!) and we can't maintain so many separate variants of the same erroneous material. We can't possibly put Ram Janmabhoomi into Babri Masjid or the other way around. I think Ayodhya dispute should be the main page where all the contentious stuff is placed. That is what it is: a dispute! Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not certain I get you. Kautilya3, you're opposing the merger (which is fine) but saying the proliferation needs to be controlled; so which article, or articles, would you merge? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think Kautilya3 has the right idea. Sarvajna is right in the sense that Babri Masjid was (is?) an actual physical structure while Ram Janmabhoomi is conceptual (no structure and only folklore to back it up). However, the two are intertwined by the dispute. So, perhaps, the right place for an article (or the root of an article tree) is the dispute itself. That's what makes the two - the former mosque and the idea that the site is the birthplace of Ram - notable. --regentspark (comment) 01:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • regentspark, are you suggesting that one page, or both pages, be merged into Ayodhya dispute? I'd be amenable to that. The point I am trying to make is that though the pages may be theoretically distinct, there is no real unique content at this point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Or to put it another way; theoretically, we could merge all four current articles into the Ayodhya dispute page. It would then be too long, and some material would need to be split off. Which topics make most sense for a stand-alone article? IMO, this one; just maybe the demolition article, but probably not; and certainly not Ram Janmabhoomi. Does that make sense? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • That's what I meant about making Ayodhya dispute the root. Merge all four articles into one and then decide if any content needs spinning off into a sub article of its own. As written, all four articles repeat the same information and the level of redundancy we're currently dealing with is way too high. --regentspark (comment) 11:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In my organisation, Ayodhya dispute is where the dispute goes, the contending historical claims, the archaeological evidence etc. The Babri Masjid page should just have the details of the masjid, like any other Jama Masjid page. The Demolition of the Babri Masjid page, which I would prefer to call the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, would have the details of the Hindu mobilisation and the demolition itself. I would want to create a new page for the `Ram Janmabhoomi movement of 1949'. Apparently the two movements are linked, through the `other saffron' of Gorakhpur, which came up on my radar because of Jaffrelot's recent article. This is probably the right time to do the reorganisation when the passions are cool and we won't get attacked by tons of POV-pushers. (All these pages at the moment suffer from an excessive reliance in newspaper sources, whose accuracy is questionable, BBC included.) Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm currently working on a page about Advani's Rath Yatra, because that has more than enough coverage on its own; on the other hand, if we wanted to merge that and the demolition page into a single page about the movement (or create a page about the movement that would be be a less detailed version of those two) I'd be willing to look into into it. Your suggestion for the Babri masjid page makes some sense, but it couldn't be completely separated from the movement, because even its use purely as a masjid has been affected; the idol in 1949, the demolition, etc. You also haven't answered the question we started out with, though; what of the Ram Janmabhoomi page? Are you suggesting merging it into the dispute page instead of this one? I'd be fine with that; that page just makes no sense as it currently stands. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, `Ram Janmabhoomi' would be merged into Ayodhya dispute in my organisation (and become either a redirect or a short summary). We should try and make every piece of content belong in a single article. That article can be summarised in many places but not "duplicated" willy nilly. Whenever content is summarised, we would have a "main article" link, and so we would know how to maintain it (via back links). If it is duplicated instead, maintenance becomes harder. (For your Advani's Rath Yatra, likewise, it could be its own page, but then the other articles should be changed to put "main article" links to it and made consistent with it.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Okay, that makes sense, and that is more or less what I would have eventually liked to see; it's just a little more ambitious than my proposal, I wanted to start small. BUT if you people are in favor, let's go for it. We should probably open a different discussion, on the destination page. I'll do so in a brief while, unless you have some other suggestion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I had to think hard about this, and ignore my impression that the Ram Janmabhoomi article was created with a political motivation. The fact remains that the Babri Majid has been gone for over twenty years, and the concept of the birthplace and what it represents goes beyond the Babri Masjid article enough to keep them separate. The fact that the Ram Janmabhoomi article lifts a lot of its syntax from the Babri Masjid article is a weakness of the writers and editors of that article, rather than a weakness in the concept of its separateness and the need for a separate article. The concept of Ram Janmabhoomi is different, and ongoing, and the Babri Masjid was a physical structure that is now going into history with no updates ensuing.Mdw0 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose clear against Wiki:NPOV and also clearly there is a time difference both the articles and blanketing the article would not solve the problem Shrikanthv (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928085435/http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ayodhyabench4.html to http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ayodhyabench4.html

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest edit

The last major edit was, overall, an improvement. It has removed a lot of poorly presented sections. However, the demolition needs to have more prominence in the opening paragraph. It is a fact that the destruction of the Babri Masjid gave it much more importance than it ever had while standing, and will be the main reason new readers come to this article. Also, the edit is too partisan. As well as the removal of the section in the opening paragraph which accurately and fairly portrays the drama of the building's destruction, any denial of a previous structure by Muslim groups and their supporters has been deleted, as though there wasn't any denial. There can't be an Ayodhya dispute if there's only one side arguing - both sides must be fairly represented. I suggest a re-entry of the statement in the opening paragraph about the destruction and a sentence or two about the views of the opposing side of the Ayodha dispute.Mdw0 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mdw0: Feel free to re-add any content or make any other changes. I removed a lot of content that was unsourced or copy-pasted from Ayodhya dispute, Archaeology of Ayodhya, Demolition of the Babri Masjid, Liberhan Commission etc. If you feel that any of those topics need to be summarized more prominently in the lead or any other part of the article, please do so. utcursch | talk 02:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the edits in detail, but I agree with the approach of removing most of the Ayodhya dispute detail from this page. Basically, it is a pragmatic issue. We don't want contentious material duplicated on a lot of pages, because it is hard to maintain it and keep it all in sync. I have said this before earlier on this talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess I have now violated my own suggestion by copying text from Ayodhya dispute into the Construction section. But there wasn't any other way to correct the misinformation contained in there. We can condense it down again if we wish. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sushil Srivastava

In the light of the revelations that Sushil Srivastava has made in the Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Verdict - P.W. 15, Sushil Srivastava, I don't think his assessments belong in this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree, but we would need a better source for that information before we take his assessment out of the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Already done [19]. I don't know of anybody else that claimed that the inscription was a forgery. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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/20121018084907/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827003623/http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do to http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do

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) 16:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

@Vanamonde93: you just reverted my edit [[20]], although I merely copied the other references cited in the article already. You can probably form a better sentence using those sources instead of removing them!-IvankaTr (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC) IvankaTr (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the shortcoming you wish to fix? Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

that there was a temple there before Babur built the mosque.-IvankaTr (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That is a matter of controversy, as the sources in the article explain. Vanamonde (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What was wrong with the edits of @AdhunikaSarvajna:? [21] confirms also the sention Babri Masjid#Archaeological excavations. Capitals00 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: There is no need to give references for every sentence in the lead, the section about the excavations already state that report confirms the temple and I am only adding that. -sarvajna (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Revenue records

The phrase "including official documents such as revenue records" is from Utcursch [22]. The source was apparently Koenraad Elst, which has since mysteriously disappeared.

I can't verify the "revenue records" claim, except to say that the entire area was called "Janmasthan" in settlement records. This was so in 1861, 1893, 1931 and 1989. Apparently it was carried over from the earlier records in Nawwabi times. The revenue records don't show a masjid there, but note the area as "populated". In all the documents, Mahants are shown as subsidiary owners. In 1861 and possibly 1893, the Janmasthan was "Nazul land" (government land), but in 1931 it is shown to belong to Waqf, but the Mahants still as subsidary owners.

In a 1858 legal suit filed by the Muazzin of the mosque, the mosque is described as "Masjid-i Janmasthan", the courtyard as "maqam janmasthan ka" and the suit was filed against bairagiyan-i janmasthan". This makes sense. If the entire area is Janmasthan, a masjid inside it would be obviously "Masjid-i Janmasthan". Syed Sahabudin apparently agreed with this interpretation, but contested that this had anything to do with an earlier temple there.

I suggest we keep "official documents" and drop "revenue records". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: If we can source the documents, I'm fine with that. Not fine with using Elst as a source, though, so if it's a claim from him, or from someone copying him, we shouldn't be including it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Who are the Hindu Activists?

There is mention of Hindu "activists" who demolished mosque - why are they called activists and not militants or terrorists? 62.216.205.33 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read the policies posted in your welcome message. And, next time, please put new posts at the bottom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

The Supreme Court has ruled that the mosque should be rebuilt at an alternative site awarded to the Sunni Waqf Board and the temple rebuilt in the same place but why it gave such a ruling is not clear right now. I therefore request you to change the sentence in the lead which reads, "In 2003, a report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that there appears to have existed an old structure at the site." to, "In 2003, a report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that there appears to have existed an old structure at the site which was a Hindu temple over which the Babri Masjid was built." Thanks (you can cite more references if you please)!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5215:bd8d::1f4:c0a1 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WP:REFB or the Reference Desk may be able to help you. Seagull123 Φ 17:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The existing reference cited (no.4) does say so!-Dr2Rao (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This and this can be cited as better references(they are not archived yet)!-Dr2Rao (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Seagull123, I hope you can reply.-Dr2Rao (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Seagull123, don't forget to set the template parameter to answered! Ed6767 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please revert

Vanamonde93, please revert this edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.40.61 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Purported painting of Babri Masjid

A View of Part of the City of Oudh, William Hodges

I have removed from the infobox, this image with the caption "The Babri Mosque, upper left, in the 18th century. From William Hodges' Select Views in India in the Years 1780–1783."

It is true that the British Library claims it but the image is nothing like what we know the Babri Masjid to be, e.g., Indian Express, 4 June 2020.

Kishore Kunal discusses this painting in his book and states that the British Library is entirely mistaken. It is a painting of the "Svargadwari mosque" built by Aurangzeb near the Svargadwar ghat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This book suggests that the scene depicted in the painting might have been imaginary. A later commentator complained that he couldn't even find the steps depicted there on the Saryu/Ghaghra. In any case, comparing it to the map given in the Anatomy of a Confrontation I conclude that this could have only been one of the two Aurangzeb mosques: "Svargadvari mosque" or "treta-ke-thakur"; certainly not the Babri Masjid. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Whatever the rights and wrongs of this picture, Kishore Kunal is hardly a neutral in this. It is strange how all images added to this articvle get removed! Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I found a PD photo, it was easily found through Google image search. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Well done - let's see how long it lasts. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Update Etymology?

I was just going through some articles and found that the mosque was probably named after a boy named Babri, whom Babur loved. Mentioned here here which takes the reference from the book Babur nama from Dilip Hiro. Should we look into it as a potential reason to name the Mosque. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Baburnama isn't considered a reliable source, and mensxp.com isn't either. If you would like to add content about this theory, you will need to find better sources for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I just wanted to start a conversation to see if it’s worth researching. But to your point, why do you think Babur nama is not a reliable source, I see a wiki page of it and also books published in different languages. Do you think there’s more to it that we should consider it as a reliable source. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Dhannipur

The article has the following words: "which the government allotted in Dhannipur." We need a citation that supports it. The following source possibly supports it, but it is not very clear. Part of it says words that can be translated as: "Land will be given in Dhanipur for the mosque. It is about 25 km from Ramjanmabhoomi located in Ayodhya. The five acres of land has been allotted to Sunni Central Waqf Board for building a mosque following the Supreme Court verdict."

• "अयोध्या: मस्जिद के लिए धन्नीपुर में दी जाएगी जमीन, देखिए मैप" [Ayodhya: Land will be given for mosque in Dhanipur about 25km from Ramjanmabhoomi]. Aaj Tak. 5 February 2020. Retrieved 27 August 2020.

If we were to use the Aaj Tak article as a citation, the article would need to mention (a) when the Supreme Court deadline was and (b) what is meant by "Ramjanmabhoomi". That way the reader could be assured that the cited source was talking about the Babri Masjid case (if it is).-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The Supreme Court had set a deadline of 9th February, 2020. You can read about Ram Janmabhoomi by clicking on that word.—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Ritwik Sharma's article in the Business Standard as a citation. It clearly states that the site is meant to be for a replacement for the Babri Masjid. Wikipedia:No original research means that we need citations like that, because it clearly and directly supports the material being presented.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned about due weight here. This article is about the mosque, not the dispute in general. If we're to avoid making all these articles clones of each other, we need to be rigorous about keeping each of them focused. The demolition of the mosque is obviously part of its history, and the pieces of the aftermath that relate directly to the demolition; but the construction of a temple, and the construction of a replacement mosque, are only footnotes. I definitely do not think Dhannipur should be in the lead. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

1. It would help if the lead defined the scope of this article, and pointed to an overarching article holding the bigger picture. Presumably, Vanamonde knows which is the overarching article.
2. Assuming that this is not the overarching article, then all the stuff about how "In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court..." belongs in the article on the Ayodhya dispute. All that would be needed would be a statement in the lead saying that the legal dispute after the demolition is covered in the article Ayodhya dispute.
3. Does the history section belong in this article? Should its equivalent be deleted from the article on the Ayodhya dispute?
4. If the article is going to mention stuff like riots in other cities after the demolition of the mosque, or allocating 5 acres of agricultural land near a village that already has four mosques and is the other side of Faizabad it needs to do so fairly or not at all. By the way are there any mosques left in the city of Ayodhya? Google maps seems to show it as mosque-free.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)