Talk:Ram Mandir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is currently confusing

This line in the article is currently confusing and needs explanation and context. - "In 1989 Kameshwar Chaupal was one of the first to lay the foundation stone for the temple." DTM (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the source from The Hindu - link DTM (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What happened in 1989? the foundation stone was laid but....? 1988 the design was made too...DTM (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Page title

What should the title of this page be? >>>

1. Ram Mandir, Ayodhya
2. Ram temple, Ayodhya
3. Ram Temple, Ayodhya
4. Ram Temple
5. Ram Mandir
6. Ram mandir
7. Ram Janmabhoomi temple
8. Bhavya Ram Mandir
9. Divya Bhavya Ram Mandir

DTM (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• As there are many Ram Temples in Ayodhya and in the world. Ram Janmabhoomi temple is more suited to this specific temple. Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 11:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see the RS calling it the "Ram Janmabhoomi temple". So for now "Ram Mandir, Ayodhya" will have to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see "Ram Janmabhoomi Temple" being used by English-language RS. If and when the temple gets a more specific name, we can reconsider this; until then I think it's between Ram Mandir, Ayodhya and Ram temple, Ayodhya, with the choice being determined by WP:COMMONNAME. English language sources will sometimes use non-English terms (as with Babri Masjid) and sometimes will not. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Arjunuws, I reverted your page move to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir. Please let this discussion finish. DTM (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The page name should be Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir because the trust has also name it that and hoardings have also been put up in Ayodhya to tell about the ground breaking ceremony and the name mentioned on the official hoardings by the trust tell the name of the temple as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir Arjunuws (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was also waiting for something official like hoardings or posters for the title of the temple. After this official update I moved the page. Arjunuws (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir/Temple is accurate because it literally means, Temple on Ram Janmabhoomi. Arjunuws (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I second Vanamonde93 on this. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently the redlinks should redirect to this page. I volunteer to do it, if there are no objections.SerChevalerie (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Many official sources refer to the temple as ‘Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’. Even the official page of the managing trust says ‘Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’. Agastya11 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agastya11 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please go ahead with the redlink redirects and any others that aren't in the list. Thanks! DTM (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected article

Please change 5 days to 6 days BECAUSE THE PAGE IS PROTECTED

LoLgU, we had a few incidents of WP:VANDALISM. You may submit an edit request for any changes that you wish to see. You can use the template: {{SPER}}. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Please change 5 days to 6 days". Where? Which line? Do you have a reliable source to back your claim? SerChevalerie (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE CHANGE THE ARTICLE

To what? SerChevalerie (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

I CAN'T EDIT THE RAM MANDIR, AYODHYA ARTICLE. UNPROTECT THE RAM MANDIR,AYODHYA ARTICLE LoLgU (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC) WHAT CHANGES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE ARTICLE:

• CHANGE 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoLgU (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

LoLgU,  Not done, please state exactly what changes you would like to see in the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on August 7, 2020.

The second paragraph mentions that "only" in 1850 the "dispute turned violent". I think the word "only" expresses a POV that violates the Neutral Point of View principle on Wikipedia. Removing it will make the lemma better. 213.93.223.201 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Reworded. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2020

Please link the appearance of "Hanuman" in the article. I've never heard of this deity and at first wondered if it were the name of a municipality where "Hanuman Garhi temple" was located, and the prime minister was obtaining some sort of planning permission. Also, the same section refers both to "Hanuman Garhi temple" and "Hanumangarhi". Could you change one of them to match the other? 64.203.187.71 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done SerChevalerie (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Semi-protected

Due to the ongoing events related to this article it has heavy editing and many appear to be disruptive. Hence it will be better if it were Semi-protected. Agastya11 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, have requested for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Due to the page protection related to the article, it has autoconfirmed

Ramlala, Ram

Damiealexan, your edit. This wasn't a typo. Ramlala is alright too. DTM (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan; Kautilya3 Is ther a possibility to replace Lord Ram with Ramlalla? As this temple is built for Ramlalla (Infant Ram). I made a Google search on the name Ramlalla, and this does have some sources to back the claim. Regards Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you share those sources here? SerChevalerie (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The article refers to the deity as Ram Lalla (Infant Rama) Agastya11 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Here are few:

• As Ayodhya Decks Up for Ram Lalla, Here's Chief Guest PM Modi's Itinerary for the Grand Event
• What the idol of Ram Lalla will don for the Ayodhya temple 'bhoomi pujan
• Ahead Of Temple Work, Ram Lalla Shifted To Makeshift Structure In Ayodhya
• Ayodhya Case Verdict: Who is Ram Lalla Virajman, the 'Divine Infant' Given the Possession of Disputed Ayodhya Land
• Process of shifting Ram Lalla idol begins in Ayodhya

I hope these will suffice to change the deity as Ram Lalla in Infobox, but not sure whether would be helpful in the body. Unless the presiding deity is briefly explained first. Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Santoshdts, Agastya11, thanks! SerChevalerie (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I hope COMMONNAME would not be an issue here. Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 19:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out! DTM (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Times Square plan cancelled/stopped

Currently the article has this line - Plans to show Lord Ram's image at Times Square have also been made.. However today (5 Aug) news reports say:

• Times Square Advertisers Asked Not to Run Hindu Temple Ad (NBC New York)
• No Lord Ram in Times Square; ad firm refuses to post billboards after Muslim groups' petition (Business Today)
• Ad on Ram Temple Won't Be Showing at Times Square, Say Diaspora Groups Who Fought It (The Wire)

Is mention of this needed in the subsection for the ground breaking ceremony or should it be left out? DTM (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, they went ahead with it in the end: Largest digital display of Lord Ram shines in New York's Times Square

Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, saw the multiple news reports online. Cheers. DTM (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Images used/ Sashtang pranam

Is there a usable picture anywhere of Narendra Modi doing a sashtang pranam on the 5th August? A picture that can be uploaded onto commons? ET, TOI DTM (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently the article has this picture File:Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi performing Bhoomi Pujan at ‘Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’, in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on August 05, 2020.jpg. Do you think it should be replaced by this one (Modi on his knees) File:The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi performing Bhoomi Pujan at ‘Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir’, in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on August 05, 2020.jpg? (However currently the first one is an ITN Nomination) DTM (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The demolition of the Babri Masjid should be briefly mentioned in the lede

I think the controversial circumstances by which land was cleared to rebuild the current temple should be included in the lede of the article, not just in the body. I would argue that it's a really significant aspect in the history of the site, and can be briefly and neutrally mentioned to provide context. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's got quite an odd POV at the moment. The comment that Muslims are welcoming this is pretty grim too. 90.252.190.223 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Have kept it WP:NPOV in the lead. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, but both in the lede and in the body, it mentions the "demolition" of the mosque, with no mention of who did it. I think this is unsatisfactory, because it's highly significant that it was an illegal demolition by a crowd of protesters, not an officially-mandated removal. I'll tweak the language some, realizing this is a sensitive issue, and we'll see if we can find a satisfactory phrasing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas, good point. It could definitely be expanded a lot more in the body. The lead is fine IMO, since this article is about the Ram Mandir, not the demolition of the Masjid. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image (for now)?

Can this be used as the infobox image for now? (until a usable one of the temple appears?) Behind Modi is an artists rendition of the temple. DTM (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the gathering at Ram Temple. Visible behind him is an artists depiction of the temple

Isn't that redention copyrighted? © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 14:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Noted. So it can't even be used in the way it is currently being used in the article? DTM (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It can be used but it may be nominated for deletion at any moment if this template doesn't apply. If it does apply, it should be added to the photo and it can be included. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 22:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Ram Lalla" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ram Lalla. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Ram Lalla until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12 § Ram Lalla, please contribute to the discussion there. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mention of structures unrelated to Islam found beneath the disputed site

I don't see the article having mentioned the supreme court and Archaeological Survey of India's findings of non-islamic structures beneath the disputed site, it is definitely not mentioned every time it is "alleged that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple". This information need to be added. The findings are mentioned in quite a few papers. I will organise the sources and insert it here in time. Awaiting suggestions till then. Then the "alleged" word can be removed. As it was definitely constructed over something that was not Islamic in origin. Santosh L (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Santoshsatvik, since this is a very contentious claim, you will have to back it up with multiple scholarly sources; regular newspaper articles won't do. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A supreme court order confirming ASI findings. I simply want the findings to be mentioned. I don't intend to claim anything other than that "there was something found beneath that demolished mosque which was not Islamic". There can be no "scholarly" articles on findings by ASI. Newspaper articles quoting the findings is more than sufficient. "Scholarly" articles may be required if I want to claim that those findings definitely point to a Previous Ram Temple, which I am not.Santosh L (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Still sounds pretty contentious to me. Go ahead with your hunt for sources, we'll evaluate them once you're done; I was just suggesting in the meanwhile. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh do tell what exactly is contentious? The point that something was found beneath the demolished mosque or something else? I don't get you. If it was on my point, why exactly is the Archaeological Survey of India not a scholarly source? And why is newspaper article quoting the ASI insufficient?Santosh L (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the point I want to mention:- The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a "structure", whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic. Summary of 2019 Supreme Court Verdict — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsatvik (talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is necessary in this article, when it's already mentioned in the main article and the article about the 2019 SC decision. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It sounds WP:DUE to me because if the dispute is mentioned then the much-discussed ASI report, given it was upheld by the court should be mentioned. Since you asked for scholarly source, I would recommend using this book where enough details are provided at p.373, 374. Santosh L (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

But why in the article about the temple? It was significant in the judgement, no doubt, but why is it significant here? SerChevalerie (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

But why in the article about the temple?: As the article is about temple, and contains a Section named "History". This seems a valid suggestion. Unless someone has objections with History Section itself or intends to include selective contents related to history of the site. Moreover, the content is available on other article with connected subject. Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 19:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Santoshdts, I think I have covered it sufficiently now, see § Separating "Background" and "History". SerChevalerie (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What is Rama Janmabhoomi?

Santoshsatvik, you have reinstated this content:

According to the ancient Indian epic, Ramayana, Rama was born in Ayodhya. Between This became known as Ram Janmabhoomi or Ram's birthplace.

Can you provide a WP:RS for this claim? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

At least, be specific: the mosque didn't cover the whole of Ayodhya, did it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Originally I was reverting an edit and thought about making the improvement soon. I have improved it now here by removing the 2nd sentence, but "According to the ancient Indian epic, Ramayana, Rama was born in Ayodhya" can be easily backed with WP:RS though, such as [1]. Santosh L (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The other issue is that there is no evidence of the place being regarded as Rama's birth place until after Aurangzeb. So, we can't say the mosque was built on Rama Janmabhoomi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

being regarded as Rama's birth place until after Aurangzeb. any specified date/period for your argument? Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 18:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this claim was marked as WP:OR in the article, I have attempted to fix it. See § Separating "Background" and "History". Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Santoshdts, please read the Ayodhya dispute article. It even cites the very book that you have linked above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Separating "Background" and "History"

Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:CFORK, I have taken content from the stable article Ayodhya dispute and added it to the "Background" section. The "History of the temple" section contains content only relevant to the current temple. Let me know if anyone has any suggestions (or concerns); I have mainly done this to prevent and separate any WP:OR from what the established facts are. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

How can there be "History" for this temple, which does not even exist yet? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've currently listed the 1989 Shilanyas and the fact that Ram Lalla was a litigant in the case over there. (The second fact may not be directly related to this article, on a side note). SerChevalerie (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have read through both the sections and they are excellent! Great job! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, thanks! "Prior construction efforts" is a much more suitable heading, agreed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Could you please correct the term "Hindu complex" in the text you've added: A 2003 archaeological excavation by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex had existed on the site. If you would like to base the comment on ASIs report, it said: "it was claimed that there were remains of an ancient Hindu temple under the disputed structure." Best Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 14:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Santoshdts,  Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Th(e) existence of a 10/11th century temple is indisputable."

Amelia Reed, I mainly reverted your edits because they were not in true spirit of WP:NPOV. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see § Separating "Background" and "History" to understand my latest "reversion" of your edits. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, please STOP reverting my edits unless you have good reason to do so. See WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Could you also do the same? First, you deny the existence of a temple instead of reading the source, then you just delete the whole sentence? As I said, I presented the information in a value-neutral manner. I did not make unproven claims or accuse any particular group of people. For a lack of better example, Would you deny the Holocaust just because you think it's not neutral to the Germans? Amelia Reed (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Ameila Reed

Your latest revert was problematic since my edit was only tangentially related to your wording. The section was plagued with OR and problematic sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie "Tangentially related"? Tell me, what according to you is an 'unproblematic' source? I presented the same information that The Supreme Court of India agreed on. Which part of my edit is problematic? Which part is unverified? The existence of a temple? Amelia Reed (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Ameila Reed

Amelia Reed, my edit, which you keep reverting, is a general cleanup. I called it "tangentially related" since I did not do it to revert YOU in particular, so stop reverting it please.

Your first edit was problematic because it was unsourced. Admittedly your second revert was a minor rewording, which I reverted because of better sourcing, which you provided. The next few edits of mine did not intend to concern what you were trying to say or mention: I have been intending to clean up the article for a while, which is why I opened this thread to discuss the reversion of your edits, and the below thread to discuss my cleanup.

The text you are proposing:

The mosque was built over the remains of a centuries old Hindu temple.

The text I have currently added:

Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

ALONG with a lot of other cleanup. If you still find this problematic then please mention why. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie My reason for editing is that the article does not show a neutral point of view. The previous sentence, "Hindus believe that the mosque was built after razing a Hindu temple." was misleading. 1. It had no sources. 2. Generalization of "Hindus"? All Hindus? What about Christians or Muslims? During the court ruling, it was clearly seen that the reality was much different. 3. "Believe" You make it sound like they had/have no proof.

I changed it to this: "The mosque was built over the remains of a centuries old Hindu temple." This was accompanied by verifiable sources. Which you again deleted by offering no real explanation.

You keep saying 'neutral', but is the article actually neutral? The destruction of Babri Masjid is mentioned in the introductory para and mentioned multiple times in the page, but the existence of a temple is mentioned once, buried away in the last paras. Only once. You keep saying 'dispute' and 'Hindu mobs' but fail to adequately explain the reasons behind their actions. The complete article subconsciously criticizes "Hindus" in general. Is that not unfair? Amelia Reed (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed

SerChevalerie Kautilya3 Instead of justifying your actions and giving proper reasons for reverting back my changes you tell me that you will block me from editing and then later impose sanctions. "Free speech" "Neutrality" Lol. Even after been shown proof and using value neural wording, this is the case. This is gold: " I called it "tangentially related" since I did not do it to revert YOU in particular, so stop reverting it please." Amelia Reed (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed

Please see WP:EW, and I've already explained to you that you didn't need to revert 2 sections of my cleanup over a single sentence.

You still haven't explained what objections you have to the current version of the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying 'dispute' and 'Hindu mobs' but fail to adequately explain the reasons behind their actions. That's because the dispute is much bigger than just The mosque was built over the remains of a centuries old Hindu temple. Hence the multiple redirects to the main article on the dispute. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie My objections are that this is an article about Ram Mandir but mentions the previously destroyed temple only once. Babri Masjid which was built on the remains of that temple is mentioned multiple times. The last edit I made clearly states the basic reasoning that was given by the 'mob' that destroyed the mosque in 1992. Which you deleted because? Shouldn't both sides of the picture be equally presented? I'm criticizing your use of intimidation tactics (I don't appreciate them) and the lack of 'neutrality'. The destruction of the previous temple is the core reason for the dispute and must be mentioned adequately.

I agree that reverting back changes you made to the two sections to bring back one sentence was unnecessary. But, you're yet to justify why you felt the need to delete that particular sentence.

And why did you delete this: "After an extensive archaeological survey, it was established in the supreme court that Babri Masjid was built over the remains of a 10th/11th century Hindu temple that existed on the same site." Clean up is not an adequate reason to only present one half of the picture in the introductory para.

P.S Can you tag me in your responses? Amelia Reed (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Ameila Reed

Amelia Reed, thank you. I've adequately explained why I reverted your edits prior to my cleanup of the article. Regarding the current state of the article, can you state clearly what change you are looking to see, in a "change X to Y" format, so that we may take this discussion forward? SerChevalerie (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

SerChevalerie Kautilya3 1. No, you haven't given an adequate reason for your actions. I still find your edits to be of personal motivation.

2. I see that you don't intend to acknowledge or apologize for your actions. I will stop expecting it.

Edit #1

Current: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in a crowd of Hindu protesters illegally demolishing the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, it was directed that the temple be constructed at the site.

Change to: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of !0th/11th century Hindu temple. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true. The Supreme Court directed that the temple be constructed at the site in lieu of the same.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate and complete picture of the situation. Shows both points of view. Uses value-neutral vocabulary and prevents unconscious bias.

Please give me time to suggest additional changes to the "Reception" section since it is also very biased. Amelia Reed (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Ameila Reed

Edit #2

Current: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to "reclaim" the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the "disputed structure".

Change to: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to reclaim the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the disputed structure.

Reason for change: Unnecessary use of quotations leads to bias.

Edit #3

Current: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Change to: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate representation of facts.

Edit #4

Current: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Change to: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence in favor of the Hindu, indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Reason for change: Continuation of the previous para.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amelia Reed (talk • contribs)

Amelia Reed, please see MOS:LEAD to understand why the first paragraph is so succinct. Also see WP:SUMMARY to understand why the "Background" section is also kept brief.

WRT edit #1, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of !0th/11th century Hindu temple is an archaeological claim that came about very recently; we don't know for sure if the Mughals actually knew about its existence or not (same goes for edit #3: over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause for the temple's destruction is widely debated.).

Regarding the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true and edit #4 in favor of the Hindu, these lines are WP:POVPUSHing, which is why it has been left out; the full verdict of the SC judgment is in the article 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute, for all to see.

Edit #2 is about the removal of the quotes, as far as I can see: I've copied this from the main article, Ayodhya dispute. I believe the quotes are there to indicate exactly what the VHP's side was.

The rest of your suggestions are covered in the "Background" section.

I agree that the Reception section could be balanced out more; if you find any sources for expansion please suggest them in a new thread, since this one is about the Background section. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie MOS:LEAD states that the lead section must be of a 'neutral point of view'. The current version is NOT neutral. Ram Temple is not mentioned in an article about Ram Temple?????? Edit #1 is necessary.

Edit #3: I agree that Mughal rulers may not have anything to do with the destruction of the temple or have any knowledge of the same. That is why I did not make any claims about the same. But, the mosque being built on top of a temple remains true.

Edit #2: The quotes are not needed.

I agree that Edit #4 is not needed. You can ignore the suggestions made above. Amelia Reed (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Amelia Reed

Additional changes: Edit #5 Add the following to See also section 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath_temple 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_of_Masjid_al-Dirar#:~:text=Masjid%20al%2DDirar%20was%20a,occurred%20in%20October%20630%20CE). 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_sophia

Amelia Reed (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, Regarding edit #5, could you justify Somnath Temple? The others won't do, since they're not related to India.

Edit #1: The lead's first paragraph is all about the Ram Mandir. Per WP:DUE the second paragraph is mentioned about the background. Anything more would be a POV push.

Edit #2: I'll let others weigh in, since it's from the main article.

Edit #3 is a WP:POVPUSH.

Lastly, could you please restrict your signature to the four tildes "~~~~" as per WP:SIGNATURE? Thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amelia Reed and SerChevalerie:, this discussion has become unmanageable. I have created separate sections below for the various issues being debated. Please use them from now on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit #1

Current: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in a crowd of Hindu protesters illegally demolishing the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, it was directed that the temple be constructed at the site.

Change to: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of !0th/11th century Hindu temple. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true. The Supreme Court directed that the temple be constructed at the site in lieu of the same.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate and complete picture of the situation. Shows both points of view. Uses value-neutral vocabulary and prevents unconscious bias.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@AmeliaReed and SerChevalerie:, I support the change except for the last two sentences which should say instead:

As part of the Supreme Court's 2019 verdict, the claim made by Hindu organizations was proven to be true. The Supreme Court directed that the temple be constructed at the site in lieu of the same.

In its 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu organisations and directed that a temple for Rama be constructed at the site.

Wikipedia cannot decide whether it constitutes "proof" or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: the claims are not "recent". See the Ayodhya dispute#Late Mughal period section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I agree with the following change:

"In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of 10th/11th century Hindu temple. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. In its 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hindu organizations and directed that a temple for Rama be constructed at the site." Amelia Reed (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amelia Reed and Kautilya3:, just to confirm, the full change will be: In 1528, the Mughals erected a mosque on the site, the Babri Masjid, which was built by Mughal rulers on the remains of a 10th/11th century Hindu temple. Disputes over the rightful use of the site resulted in multiple protests since the 1850s. A crowd of Hindu protesters demolished the mosque in 1992. In its 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu organisations and directed that a temple for Rama be constructed at the site.

If this is the change, the only real problem I have with it is that it is too detailed for the lead. But I guess it will do. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Marking this as  Done for now (I have updated the content, with a minor bit of editing). If anyone else has some serious concerns, please raise them here. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• @SerChevalerie, Amelia Reed, and Kautilya3: I have removed the claim about the 10th centure temple. The source does not support it, and I'm unaware of a historian unaffiliated with the ASI making this claim in their own voice. In fact, the source used makes it very clear this is a claim made by the VHP, and not by neutral archaeologists. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit #2

Current: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to "reclaim" the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the "disputed structure".

Change to: In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to reclaim the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ram Lalla) at this spot. In November 1989, the VHP laid foundations of a temple on land adjacent to the disputed structure.

Reason for change: Unnecessary use of quotations leads to bias.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amelia Reed and SerChevalerie:, I support the removal of the scare quotes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Marking this as  Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit #3

Current: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Change to: In the 16th century, the Mughals constructed a mosque, the Babri Masjid over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated. This is believed to be the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama. A violent dispute arose in the 1850s.

Reason for change: Gives an adequate representation of facts.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amelia Reed:, I only one sentence being added: "The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated.". I don't see any evidence for this. So I don't support this change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The sentence added is "...the Babri Masjid over the remains of a Hindu temple. The cause of the temple's destruction is widely debated." Amelia Reed (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Amelia Reed

Where is the evidence this "has been debated"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: YOu can exclude the line, but I believe its exclusion will lead to Islamophobia. In case you choose to not exclude the line, refer to, https://www.academia.edu/6618156/Ayodhya_s_sacred_landscape_ritual_memory_politics_and_archaeological_fact_2000_ Amelia Reed (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything about a debate on the temple's destruction here. Can provide a quotation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit #4

Current: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Change to: Multiple archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) found evidence in favor of the Hindu, indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

Reason for change: Continuation of the previous para.

Copied from above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amelia Reed and SerChevalerie:, I think the original version was clear enough. No value added by the new version.

Incidentally, there were no "multiple excavations". There was only one, done in a hurry because the court gave a tight deadline. There was no public debate about the conclusions. While there was considerable debate in the media, he ASI chose not to engage with it. So we have no clue what it did find. Doubts persist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, see Ayodhya dispute § Excavations, where it says Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site. Upon my investigation, it is not properly sourced. That being said, the "claims" are mentioned in more detail in Archaeology of Ayodhya, which is summarised in the article on the dispute. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is wrong. B.B.Lal had done some excavations in the neighbourhood, but that wasn't an ASI excavation. ASI might have provided support but it was his private project. The 1992 thing was not an excavation, nor was it done by ASI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I'll work on fixing it, then. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit #5

Change: Add the following to "See also" section:

1. Somnath temple
2. Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar
3. Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia
4. Hagia Sophia

Reason for change: Not mentioned The first three places of worship were subjected to religious persecution. The third one can be disregarded, it is different than the others on the list. Hagia Sophia due to the recent controversy. It was a Roman Catholic Church, which was turned into a Mosque, a Museum, and now a Mosque again.

Copied from above. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, could you please justify each of these? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Because the first three places of worship were subjected to religious persecution. The third one can be disregarded, it is different than the others on the list. Hagia Sophia due to the recent controversy. It was a Roman Catholic Church, which was turned into a Mosque, a Museum, and now a Mosque again. Amelia Reed (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, per MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:NAVLIST this isn't an issue. I'm ok with #1 and #4 (although they are only tangentially related, so I'll wait to see if anyone else has objections). You mentioned that we can skip #3. Wouldn't #2 make more sense in an article like Demolition of the Babri Masjid than over here? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Babri Masjid is already linked multiple times in the page. Adding it in the "See also" section seems redundant. Amelia Reed (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that did seem to be there from before. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC) It's not in the "See also" section? SerChevalerie (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Amelia Reed (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, the current "See also" section only has the below:

• Conversion of mosques into non-Islamic places of worship
• Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques
• List of Hindu temples in India

What exactly are you referring to? SerChevalerie (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking in reference to this? "Babri Masjid is already linked multiple times in the page. Adding it in the "See also" section seems redundant." Amelia Reed (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, yes. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Babri Masjid is mentioned in the article multiple times and the words are hyperlinked to take the reader to the proper article. Wouldn't it be redundant to mention it again in the 'See Also' section? Regarless, feel free to make your own decision on the same and the rest. I'm taking a break from Wikipedia so, I won't be replying hereafter. Amelia Reed (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, ah, we both confused each other. Anyway, anyone else have any suggestions regarding this edit? SerChevalerie (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie As this article mainly is about a religious site and not about the destruction of a religious site, I don't think #2, #3 need not be specially mentioned. Isn't there a page Masjid al-Dirar rather than Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar to be linked to?Santosh L (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional commentary

SerChevalerie Clearly we cannot come to an agreement about this. While I value neutrality, you seem to be in disagreement about the same. I will go ahead and make edits #1, #2 and #3 tomorrow unless we reach a different conclusion. I'm open to objections and contrary opinions from anyone. Please feel free to let me know your disagreements above. In view of your past actions that were in bad faith, I will disregard any future objections that are of no additional value from you and Kautilya3.

Edit 5: Is there a rule that says that other articles only from India should be linked? Amelia Reed (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Amelia Reed, that's not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Also, please sign your comments by sticking to the four tildes "~~~~". Anything additional is unnecessary (and personally makes it difficult for me to immediately reply to using the Reply-link tool). SerChevalerie (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reception section

Holy religious site should not have a "Reception" section like it is a movie and a book. And why in world is Pakistan ministry response is there when the religious site has no relation to that country? And Rana Ayyub is presented as a journalist when she is a controversial activist. All negative response and no positive repsonse Rohmanh (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have noticed other major holy sites do not have a Reception section trivialising them like Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Kaaba but this has for no reason whatsoever. Rohmanh (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Rohmanh, I've tried to balance it out somewhat, added some views by political leaders. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's a bit balanced now but still I see no reason for the section when it is not norm on Wikipedia for religious sites especially of it is a major pilgrimage of a religion as stated above. Rohmanh (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Rohmanh, you're right. I think it could be moved to the section on the "Ground-breaking ceremony", since that is the "event" which would warrant a "reception", not the temple itself. "Reception" of the temple as a whole should be about the architecture and similar concepts. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please move it. And it should be shortened to few lines and not dominate the whole page. Plus Pakistan foreign ministry declaration is really random and should be removed in fact any country's response is not needed and is bizarre for a local religious site page. It is not some disaster or international event. Rohmanh (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have currently removed the section, and the comments by Pakistan's Foreign Office. Keeping them here in the Talk page if others would like to comment:

Pakistan's Foreign Office condemned the temple's construction in a statement, adding that the "international community, the United Nations and relevant international organizations should play their part in saving the Islamic heritage sites in India from the 'Hindutva' regime and ensure protection and religious rights of minorities in India".

SerChevalerie (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:FALSEBALANCE is not a valid argument for WP:CENSORSHIP. Invisible Lad (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the word "criticism" less accurate than "Reception"? It should be changed back to "Reception". Santosh L (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree to Rohmanh, in that the Reception section is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshsatvik (talk • contribs) 06:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Reversion

Rohmanh, SerChevalerie, Santoshsatvik, Santoshdts, Kautilya3 etc., Vanamonde93 reverted all my edits as can be seen here. I am new here, so please let me know how to add it in such a way that it conforms to the rules here so that nobody removes it again (you can probably add those changes in the correct way, I will learn from it). Thanks.—Dr2Rao (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The ASI is a WP:PRIMARY source. So you have to attribute what it said to ASI, and not put it in Wikipedia voice.

Your treatment of the whole ASI business is wrong I am afraid. The ASI was appointed by the Allahabad High Court to investigate. It did not go around digging on its own. It did the investigation and submitted to the report to the Court, which was used in the Allahabad judgement. The Supreme Court upheld the ASI findings (by rejecting the challenges made to it), but it is wrong to claim that the Supreme Court "used" the ASI findings.

As to how to do edits so that "nobody removes them again", you need to read the sources carefully and summarise them faithfully. You might also consider using better sources than ToI and TimesNow, which are quite wishy-washy. In addition, you should be aware of the fact that you are making contentious edits, and so mixing a whole bunch of them in one edit like you did above, is self-defeating. If we disagree with any one of them, we will be reverting the whole hog. So, always edit one paragraph at a time, so that if it is reverted, other edits would not not affected.

Also, do not make edits because you disagree with the existing content. If you have a disagreement, discuss it on the talk page first. You should be changing content only if you are sure that it is wrong and disagrees with what the source says. Modifying well-sourced content which has been sitting here for a long time would be considered WP:POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• This reversion also seems wrong. When there were riots all over the Indian subcontinent, how can we say that the victims were mainly Muslim? Nobody will dare to kill a muslim in Pakistan, Bangladesh or any other muslim majority area of the subcontinent.—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

One issue at a time.

The content you are disputing is reliably sourced. Did you check the source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much what Kautilya said. You need to cite your edits to reliable secondary sources; and to write anything in Wikipedia's voice you need to show that it is supported by the preponderence of reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Vanamonde93, can we at least remove the, the victims were mainly Muslim as that was only in Mumbai and gives a biased picture about what happened throughout the Indian subcontinent?—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable source? replacement

Hello, I was the one who provided reference number 10 and added the wording that excavations were done in 1978 (although it is more accurate to say 1975-1976) and 2003 (whereas it previously only stated the 2003 excavations). I understand the concern regarding the neutrality of the citation - the citation was the only one I could find at the time that comprehensively mentioned both excavations. The reliability I do not think is in question here but the language used in the source is (for example "proved", which I am also not comfortable with).

I have suggest that two references be added to replace reference 10.

For the 1970s excavations, I suggest this source http://archive.indianexpress.com/oldStory/19644/ And for the 2003 excavation I suggest this source https://m.rediff.com/news/2003/aug/25ayo1.htm Liberalvedantin (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ram Temple at Ayodhya.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2021

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

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

---

• Ram Mandir, Ayodhya → Ram Mandir
• Ram Mandir → Ram Mandir (disambiguation)

– Clearly the primary topic see the page views. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PTOPIC. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support — WikiEdit^talk HiWikiEdit (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit notice

There has been a persistent POV removal of the word "hypothesized" from the lead. Would an edit notice, like the one at Template:Editnotices/Page/Allahabad be useful here? — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mr. DaxServer, Although I am new here but I think you are right. Put a notice and please raise a consensus for this. Whether to remove or keep the word hypothesized. And please add 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute for some help. This is just a suggestion. You further move rests on you. GreaterGud (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There absolutely should be, though the drive-by IPs who keep removing it wouldn't pay any attention. The page should be permanently semi-protected, IMO. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

OSM Location Map

A very nice OSM location map can be made for this article. DTM (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ram temple

About of ram mandir 2409:40E2:2D:C5D4:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024

Ayodhya is not a hypothesized birthplace of Lord Shree Ram. But actual birthplace of Thee. Also Lord Shree was the king of World ruled during treta yug. Incredible Times (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

Add an image of the temple 2620:149:13D8:280:0:0:0:29 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone add the Map coordinates for temple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.118.98 (talk)

 Already done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@The Herald: Why this lead should not talk about 1949? It is essential to mention that the monument became an attraction to Hindu devotees much before demolition. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it was a de-facto temple since 1949 and the lead should say that. The proposed wording had no issue. NavjotSR (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

De facto, it was Ram Janmabhoomi till the ground breaking ceremony and Ram Mandir, with the proper meaning, started with the construction of the temple. This also justifies the creation of the article only after the temple construction was announced. Hence, the history section can cover the disputes and other things leading upto it, but lede must cover an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents (per WP:LEDE). Also MOS:DONTTEASE says it should be written in encyclopedic style and not tease it. Devotees gathering the next day in Ram Janmabhoomi is notable in the lede of that article. For Ram Mandir, it should give an idea about the creation of the temple via the verdict, summarise the Babri Masjid dispute and then focus more on the construction, ground breaking, opening, and finally on the controversies. History section can throw light on the ancient, medieval and recent past and then can showcase the 1949 gatherings. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead is required to cover major points of the article. The lead already notes "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after the demolition an existing non-Islamic structure."

Let me know if you are fine with changing it to: "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after the demolition an existing non-Islamic structure. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the Islamic structure in 1949 before it was destroyed in 1992." Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds better and concise enough. Just fix that grammatically and you may add it to the lede, with references of course. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• SpunkyGeek & Abhishek0831996, kindly discuss here about the controversy copyedit before reverting again and violating 3RR as you both are approaching that threshold soon. Thanks.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Abhishek0831996: The controversy section you have added here was copyedited today and I found various sections and sentences that needs clarification. Multiple vague terms and words are used left and right and the sources are also very dubious. Kindly give MOS:WTW a read before adding such segments into the controversy section of a contentious topic. Most of the arguments are supported by one source only (which included WP:TOI) and we need verifications from multiple independent sources per the WP:Verifiability policy. Please fix those as soon as possible, else they have to be removed per WP:MOS, WP:INDY, WP:ONESOURCE and WP:VERIFY. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  @The Herald, would it be possible and rather appropriate that the line "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing non-Islamic structure. " be reworked to "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing structure which according to ASI was "non-Islamic."

  I'm not personally stating whether it was or wasn't, but the issue has not been fully agreed upon. StarkReport (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that means we are putting too much undue and unnecessary weight on ASI, whose reports are challenged anyways. ASI reports are mentioned in the next paragraph, and I don't think that change is needed anymore. Maybe you can rework this onto the ASI crticism sentence after the verdict sentence, with references. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Kolkata Durga Puja Pandal can be added in Popular culture

In 2023 Ram Mandir at Ayodhya was the theme of the Durga Puja Pandal at Santosh Mitra Square Sarbojonin Durgotsav committee in Kolkata it could be added in popular Culture. MultyMetaverses (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.outlookindia.com/national/in-pictures-ram-mandir-themed-durga-puja-pandal-in-kolkata-draws-massive-crowd-photos-326395 MultyMetaverses (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not notable enough for the article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

https://m.thewire.in/article/communalism/ayodhya-ram-temple-durga-puja-kolkata MultyMetaverses (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

please also mention Kolkata alongside Santosh Mitra Square and that the replica is a Pandal (that houses the deity) and D in Durga should be capital as it is a proper noun. MultyMetaverses (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Move to Shri Ram Janmabhumi Mandir

The official name of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, as on the trust's website, is Shri Ram Janmabhumi Mandir. The article should be moved to a page under the same name. Wikediter.fact (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we use names of the article per WP:COMMONNAME policy, which is Ram Mandir. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Remove the word hypothesized. It is not hypothesized birthplace. 2409:4042:4D30:4BCA:3069:6E2F:982B:13AD (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and maintains a neutral point of view. Also, refer to WP:RNPOV. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Herald (Benison) Actually, it is surprising to see that in the Bethlehem article , the world 'hypothized' is not used when mentioning about Jesus of Nazereth. Here is the copied sentence from that article, In the New Testament, the city is identified as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. So, I have changed this sentence mentioning the Hindu scripture, Valmiki Ramayana, a great epic of India. If this edit is not acceptable then the same principle has to be applied in the Bethlehem article as well. The intent of Wikipedia is to provide free, unbiased information and not to create doubt in the minds of readers who happen to be Hindus who constitute nearly 1 billion of the world population. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, mate. You may take it upto the talk page of Bethlehem article for any change you need. Also, Historicity of Jesus is not doubted by scholars and hence Bethlehem is not a hypothesized place of birth. Kindly find reliable references for your argument and then we can change the wordings of the lead. Kindly don't bring up personal views and religious views into the talk page for discussion. Refer to WP:RNPOV for more clear understanding. Thanks.

The Herald (Benison) Rama is of much anterior period than Jesus and therefore the historicity as per today's standards need not to exist. Hindus believe so as it is mentioned in their holy scriptures. So is Christian beliefs that Jesus 'got lifted to Heaven' or Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) 'splitting the moon'. To a rational mind, any religion seem to be superstition and ridiculous. Whether it is Jesus or Rama, these are part of religious BELIEFS of particular group of people, Hindus and Christians, respectively. Wikipedia is there to provide information neutrally to readers and not to create doubts or hurt sentiments of people. Be it Islamophia, Hinduphobia or Christianphobia, Wikipedia is not a place of them. When using the word hypothesized, provide a proper reference that is neutral. I am re-editing the article as per Wikipedia guidelines. Let the matter be settled by Wikipedia administrators if required. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The term has been added after discussing in the talk page before, years ago (check the archives and page history) and is from the reliable source, BBC. Any addition or removal will be considered as disruptive editing and must be discussed for consensus in talk page. Also, this is a Contentious topic. Kindly keep that in mind. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Herald (Benison) If the birthplace of Rama was discussed and settled then why the article on Rama don't have this information? Why not replace the word hypothesized with 'As per Hindu beliefs' or 'as per Valmiki Ramayana'? How does this edit can be disruptive editing? For your information, the Supreme Court of India relied on much better neutral and valid sources than the BBC while dealing with the Ayodhya dispute. Do you mean the Supreme Court made a mistake in taking note that millions of Hindus believed for many centuries that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Rama? Even foreigners who visited India during the Middle Ages noticed the reverence of Hindus for Ayodhya and the surroundings of Masjid-i-Janmasthan.

It is better to have a genuine debate on this issue to make sure that Wikipedia stands as a neutral platform rather than promoting Hinduphobia, Islamophobia, etc. As this is a Contentious topic, how come one can come conclusion that Ayodhya is a hypothesized birthplace of Rama? Many Hindu sages and saints such as Valmiki, Tulsidas, Bhadrachala Ramadasu, Tyagaraja etc have mentioned in their devotional works about Rama's birthplace. Even Mahatma Gandhi was an ardent devotee of Rama. It is important to separate the political discourse around Ayodhya from its pre-eminent spiritual importance among Hindus. Even there is no consensus on the status of Jesus of Nazareth among Abrahamic religions. He is God in Christianity, a Prophet in Islam, and a false prophet in Judaism. At the end of the day, these are all religious beliefs and there is no scientific proof of Jesus being any of these claims. So, this birthplace of Rama also falls under a similar category. It would be good if more Wikipedia editors joined this debate for helping to make this article more neutral. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

ASI report

The sentences in this article indicate that ASI reports are seriously flawed but the Allahabad high court and Supreme court of India were oblivious of the points raised by critics. It is important to clarify the distinction between historians and archeologists among these critics as latter's views are of more significance. Better someone make changes to weed out this bias. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed the ASI found clear physical evidence there is no proof such evidence is fabricated except for verbal testimony by the opposition which itself is unreliable. Also the scriptures mention a temple in a roughly similar area and fables do state of its destruction. Either give reasons it is flawed that are well researched or don't call it flawed. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

{{STATUS=COMPLETED}} Noname168 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It will be automatically updated tomorrow. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

change second paragraph to this:

In the 16th century CE, the temple was demolished to build Babri Masjid on top of it. The idols of Rama and Sita were found in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.Since then the land has been disputed in the court to identify the origins of the land. Various archeological surveys were conducted, including those by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and K.K. Mohammed, which identified the structure beneath demolished Babri Masjid,to be non-Islamic. Additionally, hindu god idols were found. The court ruled that there was indeed a temple present before the mosque, and handed the land over to a trust to rebuild the temple. The court also allocated separate land for the rebuilding of Babri Masjid. Unmisinformation (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Most of the things in your request is same as already in the article. Moreover, you have not cited any reliable sources to your request, without which, no information will be changed. Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024 (2)

PM Narendra Modi Breaks His 11-Day Fast After 'Pran Pratishtha' Ceremony at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya.Mahesh102 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024 (2)

On 22 January 2014, PM Narendra Modi Complete Ram Mandir Pran Prathistha Ceremony. Mahesh102 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Already done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Regarding poor (absolutely terrible) image quality of the idol and the temple

Can someone please fix this. Toastinopler (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently, all the images are screenshots from official YouTube channels and no media under CC BY SA have been released yet. The images will be added, as soon as they are released under appropriate licenses. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024 (3)

Please replace 'Ram Mandir' with 'Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir'. 116.75.127.119 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, the titles of the articles are per WP:COMMONNAME. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is this related to India/Paksitan/Afghanistan?

I understand there is controversy about the situation of a mosque and mandir on the same site, similar to Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But why is this placed into a conflict between Pakistan and India? It's related to Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus. There's no particular reason why Pakistanis care more about this mosque than Arabs or Indonesians, they have a kinship over religious beliefs.

This idea that all Indian Muslims have some affiliation Pakistan, Persians and Arabs needs to be put to bed. The friendliness is almost purely over shared Islamic heritage that you can also find with Indonesians for example. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic area that covers all of the countries collectively, similar to WP:ARBEE], rather than being about the conflicts between them necessarily. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

How does it cover Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular though? It's controversial among a section of Muslims throughout the world, but especially India. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not India and Pakistan and Afghanistan, its India and/or Pakistan and/or Afghanistan. It covers any topic that is disputed in India or Pakistan or Afghanistan or even the ines between the country. It covers it all. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2024

It is not hypothesized birthplace of Shri Ram. It is The Actual Birthplace of Shri Ram. 110.235.235.86 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this request is neither uncontroversial nor supported by consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Modification proposal as the page is fully protected

I propose the following modification

FROM THIS The bhumi pujan (transl. ground breaking ceremony) for the commencement of the construction of Ram Mandir was performed on 5 August 2020, by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.[13] The temple, currently under construction, is being supervised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The prana pratishtha (transl. consecration) of the temple is scheduled for 22 January 2024.[14]

TO THIS

On 5 August 2020, the Bhumi Pujan (transl. ground breaking ceremony) for the commencement of the construction of Ram Mandir was performed by Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India.[8] The temple, currently under construction, is being supervised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.

On 22 January 2024, Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, served as the Mukhya Yajman (transl. chief patron) of rituals for the event and performed the Prana Pratishtha (transl. consecration) of Ram Lalla.[9][10] The Prana Pratishtha ceremony was organised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra.[11][12] Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations which confirm that Narendra Modi was Mukhya Yajman and citations which confirm the event and ritual of Prana Pratishtha -

https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/ayodhya-chief-yajman-modi-completes-pran-pratishtha-in-84-seconds-heres-why-jan-22-was-chosen-101705915840113.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/photo/pm-modi-at-ram-mandir-in-ayodhya-for-pran-pratishtha-ceremony-2491923-2024-01-22 Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an improvement that is unlikely to be controversial. It would help if the wikilinks and references were included in the proposal. Waiting a bit longer in case there's input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This may be helpful. Thank you

On 5 August 2020, the Bhumi Pujan (transl. ground breaking ceremony) for the commencement of the construction of Ram Mandir was performed by Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India. The temple, currently under construction, is being supervised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.

On 22 January 2024, Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, served as the Mukhya Yajman (transl. chief patron) of rituals for the event and performed the Prana Pratishtha (transl. consecration) of Ram Lalla. The Prana Pratishtha ceremony was organised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This can be done to avoid overlinking. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done , along with the weak suggested by The Herald. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Can you make it into single paragraph? Two paragraphs are not needed. CharlesWain (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

References