Talk:Ram Mandir/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 22 January 2024. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since the article is nominated for

1. In the para "Consecration" please wikilink Paduka.
2. In the 2nd para of "Construction" please change the statement to make it as: "It was officially announced by Champat Rai, the General Secretary of the Sri Ram Janmbhoomi Kshetra Trust that 22 January 2024 would be the scheduled date for the installation of the Ram Lalla idol in the garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum)."
3. In the 2nd para of "Construction" please change the statement to make it as: "On 25 October 2023, a formal invitation was extended Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the ceremony." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

1. 2 and #3 are done. For #1, is linking one part of a longer non-English term helpful? Could we add a translation?

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• It'd also be better if the two cite errors are fixed. I unfortunately cannot invest into investigating them. Someone, please do the favor 🙏 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  The cite errors are resolved. I could use a second opinion on the Irfan Habib source. Is it that Habib is the author and the Aligarh Historical Society the publisher? Or did the society author the piece and Habib just write the preface? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for resolving the cites.

  My 2c on Habib's source: Reading the preface, it seems to me that the AHS collectively authored it, as the 3rd-person us/we/our is the only reference used to refer to the authorship rather than the 1st-person I/my/me, [and of course published it] with Habib representing the work, couldn't say how much of the work can be attributed solely to him. As a whole, I'd cite the work as that of the AHS' but not Habib's (as a historian) - aka as simply AHS' response/analysis/opinion/... to the judgement. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 23:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Dax. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the history section, sentence The Supreme Court in its landmark jugdement concluded that the underlying structure beneath the mosque was not an Islamic structure, and also that there is clear evidence that the disputed site was believed by Hindus as the Janmabhoomi (birthsite) of Rama, the link on Janmabhoomi is to a dab page of that name, and nothing on the dab page is a correct target for this link. Please can it be unlinked? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Is Ram Janmabhoomi a potential link target? Is it ok to link it again since it's linked in that section's hatnote? Should it be added to the dab page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Missing categories:

• Category:Buildings and structures completed in 2024
• Category:2024 establishments in India

109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about these ones. Is the building complete, and should the year of "establishment" be the year of consecration or year of completion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Both are different. If you are not knowing, kindly ask other editors for the same who edit and know these things better (I am assuming you non-Indian). Building completion and consecration are two different things. Building of Shri Ram Mandir, Ayodhya is under construction but the consecration has been done! Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11: thanks for your answer. But in that case what about adding Category:Buildings and structures under construction in India? 109.38.134.82 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. Leaving it for a bit in case there are any objections. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The category Category:Ayodhya can be removed, because the article is already in sub categories Category:Buildings and structures in Ayodhya and Category:Ayodhya dispute.

109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is currently constructed and not under construction, please do the needful and change it. Tomuton (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please join the discussion above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change From: The Ram Mandir is a Hindu temple under construction in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India.

To: The Ram Mandir is a Hindu temple now fully constructed and inaugurated by Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi on 22 January 2024, in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India. Yogeshmakhija (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please join in the above discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Second sentence, change from

The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE.

to

The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid mosque which was built in 16th century CE.

(Emphasis for demonstration only, not to be included in the actual article.)

Because what the heck is a Babri Masjid? I figured that it was an earlier Hindu temple or something. Sure there's a link but links take you off the page and are for extra enrichment not for basic quick definitions when they're needed. Yes I know that "masjid" means means mosque, but the typical reader will not know this and we are not pedants here.

(Also the normal construction for "built in 16th century" would be "built in the16th century". Maybe that's a Brit thing idk, but I don't recall ever seeing it. But you're an admin you can fix it or not on your own initiative.)Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you User:Firefangledfeathers. I don't envy you having to handle this article. I learned from Adams Bridge that some Indian articles can be contentious. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You really cracked me up with that one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As the temple is not completed yet (see also first sentence); can it be removed from the infobox that it is completed? It states in the Infobox “Completed 22 January 2024; 2 days ago” This is confusing. 109.38.134.82 (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please join the above discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@SpunkyGeek, do note that the Lede cannot delve into the intricate details of the entire dispute. I have written about the dispute and criticisms to be as concise as possible. StarkReport (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996, Respectfully, in actuality, the dispite regarding Ram Mandir is highly WP:Relevant and WP:Notable. It is integral to the temple's historical narrative.

Since we have mentioned the claims of ASI which were strongly contested by archaeologists and other people alike, not mentioning about the disagreements even briefly, would violate

WP:Balance and WP:NPOV

.

Kindly note that I intially only wrote "However, the ASI report has been heavily disputed by critics." It was only after the insistence of SpunkyGeek, I extended it by describing the dispute regarding the temple.

The

DUE

nature merits its presence on the Lede.

@The Herald, can you take a look at this? StarkReport (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with StarkReport and SpunkyGeek edits. The ASI critique is relevant and must be included in lede for NPOV. Any deletion to the lede further must be discussed in the talk page for consensus. @Abhishek0831996: Please don't remove well cited portions from lede when the additions are under discussion in talk page. It will be considered as WP:disruptive editing. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

SpunkyGeek Hasn't shared his opinion yet. I find the long criticism of ASI report to be undue because this criticism is not only futile but also not central to this subject. It should be removed. NavjotSR (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I also think that the sentence as a whole is undue for the lead. Right now it is bigger than the need even if there had to be no objection against it. I would reduce the current sentence to just "However, ASI claims were heavily disputed by critics," for now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section, in itself, is relevant. But the length is something that's bothering me too. The discussion in the section above, about Babri Masijd also was putting too much undue weight on ASI and it's report. So, like Abhishek said, a single sentence, describing the ASI report critique, with less than 15 words should suffice, to avoid undue weight here also. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@

WP:Due

than things like "alleged misuse of donation" issues. Claiming that it is "futile" unfortunately demonstrates lack of grasp.

@Abhishek0831996, The thing is, there is a two warring sides to this temple issue. One side states that the archaeological evidence supports their view, while the other side states that it actually discredits the opposing view and even supports their own. Now we already have given enough weight to one side as "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." as well as "In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque. The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic."

Now even after this, not mentioning about the dispute would be in stark contrast to

WP:Balance

.

It's like: "According to xxx scientists (or, in this case, archaeologists), this is the case. However, xxx scientists (or, in this case, archaeologists) disagree with that view and criticize it." StarkReport (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That critics response should be removed. Supreme Court verdict is final word. After that other narrative created by news portal doesn't matter. Also the controversies are added in header, no need to mention it in lead. Critique response should be in 2019 Ayodhya Dispute verdict, not at temple page and absolutely not in lead. Themodifie7 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"other narrative created by news portal", Kindly read my above response, the scepticism is held by archaeologists and historians who are Wikipedia's authoritative source. No one is arguing that whether the Supreme Court verdict will be changed or not, just that the foundational premises that justified the decree, is doubted by experts.

The only

WP:Due

thing is missing from this article, is a section under Controversies area, that details "Historical and Archaeological Controversy" regarding Hindu and Muslims claims, and Babri Masjid Demolition and the Communal Tensions. All of which can be written in a single section compactly.

Please bear in that that the NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and we are taking a significant risk by contemplating removal based on selectively choosing parts of the narrative.

Here are additional sources: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} StarkReport (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no argument that it shouldn't be included. The critique must be included for the NPOV and DUE, especially when maintaining a neutral point of view is one of

five pillars. That part is non negotiable and Supreme Court of India doesn't have the final say in Wikipedia. Any criticism must be added, without doubt. The only argument is about the length of the sentence. As I said, a maximum of 15 words or less than that should suffice for the ASI findings criticism. Also, it is not an argument created by any news portals, but by scientists and historians. Since they are supported by various independent sources that are reliable and are connected to the verdict that made the existence of the temple possible, it must be included. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk

) 07:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant claims that came after supreme court Verdict. And it's been added in lead in Ram Mandir page while it doesn't require here if it really matter it should be in 2019 Supreme Court Verdict page. It wasn't discussed before adding, why to discuss before removing it. Themodifie7 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I am still of the view that the criticism should be removed as a whole. Will still wait for the view of SpunkyGeek. For now, I have shortened the criticism per above discussion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996 exactly my point, sources aren't reliable and it's biased. Also recently Irfan Habib accepted there was temple at that site. How can it be relevant anymore. Also the last paragraph of controversies needs to be removed from lead. There is already a header for this. Themodifie7 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Themodifie7, Based on your cherrypicking, we might just remove everything that goes against the state-owned narrative StarkReport (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Cherry picking?

After choosing articles and authors who are infamous for their biasness towards one perticular religion to validate your point?

Insane. 103.36.80.253 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully IP, there are devout and respected Hindu historians and scholars who have disputed ASI claims. See the sources given above as well as in the article. Also read Ram Janmabhoomi article. StarkReport (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald, @Abhishek0831996, Given varying heated debates and contrasting claims about whether a Hindu, Islamic, or "non-Islamic" structure existed beneath the site, it seems prudent to reconsider and refine the wording of the first line as: The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing structure whose origins is debated(or, with controversy over its origins). StarkReport (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No. See

WP:RGW. Abhishek0831996 (talk

) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello guys,

Thanks for collaborating.

Appreciate your contributions.

Regarding ASI critique I think this page is not the place to put it (refer

WP:LEDE

was not followed because there was almost nothing mentioned in the body of the article about critique on ASI observations.

As this is a matter of high concern I insist on following guidelines strictly. SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @SpunkyGeek, Regarding "WP:LEDE was not followed because there was almost nothing mentioned in the body", I did note about that which is why I wrote that: "The only WP:Due thing is missing from this article, is a section under Controversies area, that details "Historical and Archaeological Controversy" regarding Hindu and Muslims claims, and Babri Masjid Demolition and the Communal Tensions. All of which can be written in a single section compactly."

If given green light by other editors, I'm willing to write a single section for this issue in a concise manner. As this matter about the temple's history is more Relevant than few other minor controversies. StarkReport (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996, See Ayodhya dispute and Archaeology of Ayodhya. And also kindly read WP:RGW's "Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do." which is exactly what is proposed above.

And we have a wealth of "information that is verifiable using reliable sources." StarkReport (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have no position on the ASI critique at the moment; but I have removed the claim of demolition from the lead. There is no consensus among reliable sources that this was the case. There is genuine disagreement as to the nature of the previous structure, but please note that even many sources which accept the existence of a temple that predated the mosque do not support the claim of demolition. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I concur. StarkReport (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also i am concerned about removal of controversies of last paragraph. which doesn't require in lead. 2409:40C0:5E:D228:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss anything related to the construction status of the temple here

As of now the media sources have only confirmed that the Prana Pratishtha has been completed.

According to the plan of the temple complex the construction of outer minor temples (for Lord Hanuman, Jatayu etc). Hence the status is still under-construction. Please state your views on this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Inviting @Altoumulus comments on this Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Information that Ayodhya is one of the seven holy cities to Hindus can be added in the lede in a small sentence. This piece of information may be necessary to make readers understand why Hindus had pre-eminent importance to Ayodhya for ages. I tried to add that but got reverted citing the need to provide non-primary sources as a reference. Someone can make this edit to provide this information. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats sounds like something to be added onto Ayodhya article, not Ram Mandir article. Also,

WP:LEDE in depth tp understand what is to be added onto lede. The Herald (Benison) (talk

) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a better source for this claim? The current source is an opinion piece in The Print, which is not ideal. The article "Ayodhya Issue" in The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism states free link According to Hindu nationalist ideologues, a temple had been built on the birthplace of God Ram (Ramjanmabhoomi); but in 1528 Babur, the first Moghol emperor, had this temple replaced by a mosque, the Babri Masjid. Although there is no definite archaeological evidence for the existence of a temple on that site. Given that RS do not seem to treat the claim for a pre-existing temple as unequivocal, neither should we. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. StarkReport (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The content about Supreme Court stance on ASI report and accepting them as valid is already given above the critique part.

The addition of the same information: "But, these became futile as the Supreme Court, after detailed proceedings, accepted the ASI report as valid. The Supreme Court in its landmark jugdement concluded that the underlying structure beneath the mosque was not an Islamic structure, and also that there is clear evidence that the disputed site was believed by Hindus as the Janmabhoomi (birthsite) of Rama." in a forceful manner in a subsequent section appears redundant and violates

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ram Mandir Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In the article's lead, this section

"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.[8][9][10] In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque.[11] The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic.[12]",

appears to be misleading. Firstly I think it belongs to the history section of the article more than the lead and secondly, it says that the site was previously a mosque called Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE and the idols of Ram and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949.

It is misleading because, the Babri Masjid was built there after destroying a ram temple there which was there before this mosque which is very clearly mentioned in the article of Babri Masjid [[Babri Masjid#:~:text=Many Hindus believe,8][9]|here1]] and here2. The court ruling about Ram temple being there before the masjid was built should also be equally mentioned in the lead and also it should be placed in history rather than the lead. A little explanation seems right too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to this in here 1 above, taken from Babri Masjid article,

The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("Rama's fort"). According to Hindus, the Mughal commander Mir Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site. The existence of this temple is a matter of controversy. The Archaeological Survey of India conducted an excavation of the disputed site on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. Various materials have been found during excavation which suggest the presence of a Hindu structure beneath. The Allahabad High court noted that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and the excavated underneath structure was not Islamic in nature.

Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. In 1949, idols of Rama and Sita were placed inside the mosque, after which the government locked the building to avoid further disputes. Court cases were filed by both Hindus and Muslims asking for access.

here 2 refers to this,

On September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple.

Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're proposing either:

1. Removing the Babri Masjid content from the lead
2. or adding some Ram temple content to the lead

For option 2, can you draft some specific text. How do other editors feel about these options? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I propose to do both, because the Babri Masjid present section in the lead is too large to be mentioned there, it can moved to history section. I will try to draft and reply the text here in some time. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the modification that I wish to propose:

"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India, delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple. The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic."

Also requesting you to move this text to the history section of this article.

A line mentioning about this can be added in lead as following if required: ''The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama in 16th centure CE" Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal. Waiting on input from others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with 1 line summary is enough. A para is undue in lead. However, the second part of "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama in 16th century CE" is disputed and unsourced by references. Alternate wording: "The site is subject of the Ayodhya dispute and is the former location of the Babri Masjid, which demolished in 1992." Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Redtigerxyz. There is no reliable sources suggesting the existence of pre Babri Masjid temple. That is unsourced and disputed and hence, should not be added. The first part looks okay to me. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which suggest the existence of temple. A reliable article which says that the ASI survey says there is evidence of a temple beneath the mosque. - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/22/babri-mosque-to-ram-temple-a-timeline-from-1528-to-2024

A sentence following it, but many archaeologists and Muslims dispute the findings, can be observed which may suggest that it is disputed. So it is not right to call that there are no reliable sources suggesting the existence of pre Babri masjid temple. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The article states , and I quote 'Hindus claim the Babri Masjid was built on the site of a temple during the first Mughal ruler Babar' , claiming and existing is two different things. The Allahabad High Court Judgements mentions Non-Islamic Structure . I propose the following edit

"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE . The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India, delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple. The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic." Harvici 08:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• That whole paragraph is already fine enough. I don't see how suggested edits will improve it. They are confusing. CharlesWain (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to the Infobox the temple is completed. However the first sentence is still: “The Ram Mandir is a Hindu temple under construction...” Please change the first sentence into

“The Ram Mandir is a 2024 completed Hindu temple...” 109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The temple is under construction currently so first line can't be changed to "COMPLETED TEMPLE". Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, per above. Should the infobox be changed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, Should not be done: Since the temple is under construction, no changes should be made (neither in first line, nor in infobox) on its building status. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It is currently under construction. Only consecration ceremony is done. Consecration ≠ Building completion! TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

We can maybe add something like (open for worship) just below Under Construction. This can satisfy everyone. ShaanSengupta^Talk 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

TheProEditor11, I'm asking if the infobox should be changed since it currently says "Completed 22 January 2024". I understand the difference between consecration and building completion. You may be misinterpreting my comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers just one suggestion. We can remove the last para of lede as it is repeated. The same para is present in the Controversies section of the article. Do we really need the exact same things at two places in the article?

The para is - The temple has attracted a number of controversies due to alleged misuse of donation, sidelining of its major activists and politicisation of the temple by the Bharatiya Janata Party. ShaanSengupta^Talk 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This change would probably be controversial. If consensus develops, use an edit request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If the temple is not completed yet, why is it still in the infobox? This is confusing. 109.38.134.82 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

‘The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.’ The last sentence creates the idea that the idols found in the mosque were fake and propaganda, and that Hindu “terrorists” destroyed the mosque using the aforementioned idea as a shield. Please note that that information is not concrete. I thaa been scientifically proven that there was a temple on that land dating back to the 12th century. The phrase “ placed in the mosque” is therefore misleading. Siraraman (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

True Nishant229 (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The history section is talking about the Babri Masjid, which was built in AD 1528–29.So idols of Rama and Sita found in the mosque are not seen as fake or propaganda, but rather the idea of a temple existing before Babri Masjid was supported by very few reliable sources and opposed by many (see:

WP:RNPOV) Harvici

09:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add more historical facts and this event do not suddenly starts on 1949 A.D. by one event.

It has lot of history.

1607 to 1611 A.D. -

William Finch visited India from 1607 to 1611 A.D.,

his travel account has been published by William Foster

in his book "Early Travels in India".

William Finch mentioned about ruins of the Ramachandra’s castle and houses. The travel accounts also noticed the belief of Indians that Ramchandra was born, who took flesh upon him.

I am doing my research hoping you will do as well to make this better for readers. 47.20.129.3 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, before Babri Masjid, it was already a birthplace of Shri Ram,but the author very carelessly did the research (maybe intentionally) and removed that part (most probably because of a lack of evidence), but he didn't forget to highlight the other accusations of political benefits from it and accuse many others without any proof(also, mentioning the 'non-Islamic' structure instead of the structure of a Hindu temple shows the real intentions of the author). Nishant229 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The birthplace of Jesus is not doubted by scholars and have reliable sources , but in the case of Shri Rama , there are no reliable sources. The non-Islamic part is that many reliable sources mentioned it as Non-Islamic structure, like (BBC) . Please don't bring your religious and personal feelings to the talk page for discussion. (refer to

WP:RNPOV) Harvici

09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not, who are you again? 2409:4050:2D33:60B3:0:0:3A4B:CD0C (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are violating Wikipidea policies by expressing your personal and religious views. Wikipidea maintains a neutral point of view regarding everything; it does not take bias for a certain person or group.And I am Harvici, a proud editor of Wikipidea. If you still have a problem, let this be settled by an admin. Thanks Harvici 12:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Father Joseph Tieffenthaler visited India between

1766-1771 A.D. He wrote historical and geographical

description of India in latin. In the description of the Province of Oudh, following is stated:-

“But a place especially famous is the one called Sitha Rassoi i.e. the table of Sita, wife of Ram, adjoining to the city in the South, and is situated on a mud hill.

Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same

place. 47.20.129.3 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your claim.Thanks. Harvici 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Links and “;” and “,” Can this sentence

“ was done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, Nritya Gopal Das, on 22 January 2024.”

Be changed into a sentence with links

was done by Prime Minister, Narendra Modi; Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath; Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, Nritya Gopal Das, on 22 January 2024.

Thanks 109.38.134.82 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DUPLINK, feel free to re-request the edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 15:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Addition to deity sub section

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The deity just focuses on Ram but that section is devoid of intricate details like the

Lord Rama is twice shown in the statue once as the primary statue and the next one of the side pillars. —RIP B1058 (talk

 Not done for now: This will need a specific proposed text and some consensus before it can be implemented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Dont close section as you said consensus is needed so we can continue discussing here. —RIP B1058 (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The section is not closed, and this is the perfect spot to continue the discussion. Please don't reactivate the edit request template until there's consensus for specific language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok —RIP B1058 (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is more a cosmetic edit than anything, surely the second paragraph should be in chronological order?

1. Archaeological evidence shows that a non-Islamic structure, most likely Hindu, was on the site prior to the mosque. Furthermore several first hand accounts describe a non-Islamic structure and also a house related to the birthplace of Rama.

2. Islamic mosque was built on the site. Later Hindu idols were placed in the mosque.

3. Mosque was demolished during Hindu-Muslim tensions and eventually Rama Mandir is built.

The demolition of the mosque seems more "random" in the current wording rather than because there was previously a house associated with Rama on the site. Arind8 (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, it appears that this perspective is presenting the matter as an established fact. However, the "evidence" is deemed by other historians and archaeologists as scant and fragmented. StarkReport (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well i agree with you tho. Many far left historians like romila thapar,dn jha etc have questioned the findings.and historians like supriya verma and jaya menon says there was a buddhist structure not a hindu one.please note that there is a general.agreement that archeological evidence shows that the mosque was built on a non islamic structure.these historians just dont seem to agree on the characterstic of the structure before babri.(good thing that the invaders left half temple intact in case of gyanvapi othetwise these historians would have continued with their world class research there as well) 2409:40E3:B:8D6A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers can you add OIC denunciation in the "Reactions to Bhumi-pujan ceremony" part?^[1][2] 182.183.72.76 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Before I can implement the edit, I'll need a specific language proposal and consensus from other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "History" section, in the first paragraph, second sentence, replace the reference <ref name="Sethi 2021 p. 154">...</ref> with <ref name="Sethi 2021 p. 154" /> to correct a duplication. Bsherr (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(Best viewed in edit mode.) Change the top matter, viz

{{short description|Temple of the Hindu deity Rama in Ayodhya, India}} {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} {{pp|small=yes}} {{other uses}} {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2023}} {{Use Indian English|date=January 2024}} {{Infobox Hindu temple | image = Pran Pratishtha ceremony of Shree Ram Janmaboomi Temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on January 22, 2024.jpg | alt = Ram Mandir at Ayodhya | caption = Ram Janambhoomi Mandir | coordinates = {{coord|26.7956|82.1943|type:landmark_region:LK|display=inline,title}}

to

{{short description|Temple of the Hindu deity Rama in Ayodhya, India}} {{other uses}} {{pp-dispute|small=yes}} {{pp|small=yes}} {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2023}} {{Use Indian English|date=January 2024}} {{Infobox Hindu temple | image = Pran Pratishtha ceremony of Shree Ram Janmaboomi Temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on January 22, 2024.jpg | alt = Ram Mandir at Ayodhya | caption = Ram Janambhoomi Mandir | coordinates = {{coord|26.7956|82.1943|type:landmark_region:IN-UP|display=inline,title}}

per

https://archive.org/details/the-battle-for-rama-meenakshi-jain

https://search.worldcat.org/title/989154730

—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: And you're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following: Around the temple premises, to ease the visitors of different linguistic backgrounds, authorities put multilingual plaques, noticeboards and signboards in

• Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and this isn't encyclopedic information. Most places visited by tourists will be accessible in multiple languages, if people want to know that information, they should visit the temple's website, not an encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: this appears to be a controversial request. Feel free to re-activate the template if consensus develops for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i.e Ram Mandir (lit "Rama Temple")

The global English translation of "Ram Mandir" is Rama Temple since both "Rama" and "temple" are used widely interchangeably to refer to Ram and Mandir.

Rama is the norm in western English, South India and East Asia to refer to Rama/Ram. Mandir is found in Indian languages but not natively overseas where it is more likely to be described as a "temple" in the local equivalent. Arind8 (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done . I reworded the style and added a translation template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Temple of Rama" or "Rama's Temple" and not "Rama Temple" ? 106.51.177.101 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

a sentence says that Idol was placed in mosque in 1949, however I believe it should say a Idol was found in mosque in 1949. So basically, please replace placed word with found. 103.158.146.171 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources.Thanks. Harvici 07:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Bro,i think you know that there are very few "reliable" sources that document this event on The Hindu side of things,so it would be somewhat imprudent to ask for "reliable" sources,and if we provide the so called sources,we seem to violate NPOV.

Hope you understand.

Regards 157.40.116.0 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that it violates WP:NPOV. and we should definetly change the word 'placed' with 'found' . Let's see what other editors say. Harvici (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As Harvici mentioned it is important to adhere to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Here are some words used to mention about that incident with sources in the brackets,
1. mysteriously appeared (December 23, 1949: Abdul Barkat Sees Divine Ram Lalla, Outlook, 22 January 2024),
2. found inside (What will happen to the old Lord Ram idol 'found' inside Babri Masjid, Deccan Herald, 24 January 2024),
3. reportedly appeared (What Happens To Old Ram Idol Which "Appeared" Inside Babri Masjid In 1949, NDTV, 24 January 2024),
4. surfaced inside (The Untold Story of How the Rama Idol Surfaced Inside Babri Masjid, Wire, 6 December 2021)
5. placed (How the Ramjanmabhoomi movement fuelled BJP’s rise and reshaped India’s political landscape, Frontline, 22 January 2024)

Perhaps, it may be helpful to achieve consensus about right chocie of word to be used.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Government Issued postage stamps on Ram Mandir twice once during Bhoomi Poojan and once during pran patistha this can be added in popular culture. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/postage-stamp-special-cover-to-mark-ram-temple-bhoomi-pujan/articleshow/77375756.cms https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-releases-commemorative-postage-stamps-on-ram-temple-in-ayodhya/article67751435.ece MultyMetaverses (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers please check this MultyMetaverses (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Before I can implement this, I'd need a specific proposal for the language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove the word hypothesized 103.69.25.124 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is duplicate request, see #Edit request above where the matter is already under discussion.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

EDIT by Jan Arvid Götesson, who made the request: this request has been moved to this place, because my request should not be in the section Use of “hypothesized”. The edit request above may now be ignored. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article (“It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism”) must be changed immediately, because it reads as if Rama is a historical person. Unfortunately, this necessary quick edit is not made, because it has become conflated with another discussion, namely how to improve the introduction generally. In this unrelated wider discussion, consensus is needed. But the embarrassing second sentence must be changed immediately. I suggest that the two first sentences should be as follows.

“The Ram Mandir (lit. transl. Rama Temple) is a Hindu temple under construction in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India. According the the religious beliefs of some Hindus, it is at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, which, according to religious belief, is the birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism.”

But the exact words are not important. That is a later discussion. The important thing is that Wikipedia immediately stops claiming that Rama has an ”hypothesized birthplace”, as if he were a historical person. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not declining in case another responding admin has another take, but a review of the past few weeks of article edits and talk page proposals suggests that multiple editors both support and oppose "hypothesized". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for not declining, but you still don’t understand the problem. It is not relevant that ”multiple editors both support and oppose ‘hypothesized’” The problem is that the second sentence currently reads as if Rama is a historical person.

Apparently you make the following mistake. You look at the sentence “It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism”, and then you refer to a discussion whether ”hypothesized” is a good choice of verb in that sentence. It does not matter what the verb is, as long as the sentence structure as a whole implies that Rama is a historical person.

It would be possible to use the word “hypothesized” somewhere in the intorduction, for example if we wrote that ”the site is hypothesized to be a site, or the site, where ancient believers thought Rama was born”. (Not elegant English, but I hope you get my point.) The discussions you are referring to, and the discussion about the verb ”believe” are questions where consensus is needed. I am only talking about an emergency: a blunder that technically is as trivial as a misspelling, but has the unfortunate embarrassing effect that I have described. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Many editors have expressed support and opposition to the current version, which includes the word "hypothesized". You have expressed an argument about how that word contributes to an embarrassing effect. That argument has not yet gained consensus. To put it another way, if the status quo is so patently embarrassing, and your version such an obvious improvement, that switching between the two is as trivial as fixing a typo, why aren't the other participating editors in agreement? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps because they don’t see the text with fresh eyes? I saw this a few days ago, and immediately saw the problem. I think many people, who are not interested in the topic, and saw the introduction for the first time, would see what I see.

Another possible reason is that some editors might be believers, or might have political and religious opinions that make it ease for them to accept words to the effect that Ram Janmabhoomi might be the “birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism”.

Third, some editors might not be good at seeing the implications of a certain choice of word. They probably read the current sentence like this: ”This site is possibly the place that ancient Hindus identified as the birthplace of Rama.” But that is not what the current sentence says.

You asked me a question. Now I want to ask you a question. Let’s move to Greek mythology, because there are no political and religious zealots who fight for Aphrodite. Look at this sentence: “Cyprus is the hypothesized birthplace of Aphrodite”. Does that sentence strike you as ridiculous in an Encyclopaedia? The last twelve words of the current Rama‑sentence is exactly equivalent to my ridiculous Aphrodite‑sentence. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I do agree with the suggestions by

Swarga) where Rama was supposed to left the mortal world, and Treta ka Thakur (lit. Lord of Treta Yuga

) where Rama supposedly performed some ritual. Even both of them were converted to mosques during Mughal rule. Perhaps, in ancient days Hindus believed these three sites (i.e. Janmasthan, Swargadwar, and Treta ka Thakur) commemorated some important life events of Rama. So, I suggest writing two sentences, one mentioning Ayodhya as the birthplace while the other one mentioning the ancient belief of Hindus that Rama took birth in the Ram Janmabhoomi area.

Popular figures like Rama, Moses, etc being historical or not are of little interest to the vast majority of the people who adhere to their respective beliefs. Moses being supposedly mythological hasn't stopped millions of people converting to Islam or Christianity. Keeping all the political sensitivities and religious emotions aside, the crux of the Ayodhya dispute was to determine if some temple that was so dear to Hindus in their holy city of Ayodhya was destroyed during Mughal rule. Why that temple was dear to Hindus is subject to their belief system.

I am of opinion that it is important to segregate the political rebate around Ram mandir with the immense reverence Ayodhya had since old ages by Hindus. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think what we want here is mythical or in myth, or legendary or in legend. These are usual terms in situations like this. Myths or legends can be real or not. "Washington's legendary crossing of the Delaware" but also "The legendary appearance of werebeasts on Dunston Moor when the mood is full". "The myths of the first explorers", but also "The mythical headless men of Brazil". Neither of these terms in any way shape or form imply whether the event happened or didn't.

Sure, these words have other meanings. "It's a myth" is used to mean "It ain't true". But so do many words. That can't stop us from being precise, and these are well established terms used in scholarly discussions of these things. I mean come on, these are the actual correct terms used in situation like this. Not "might be" or "some hold to be", but are. Unless we want to start being an outlier from serious/scholarly terminology. Which we don't. Herostratus (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

My issue with the word "myth" is that it has specific meaning in this context; it refers to Hindu mythological literature broadly speaking, and the Ramayana specifically. That literature, as I said above, doesn't refer to this specific site in any way (and I say that based on scholarly sources assessing the literature, not on my own reading thereof). Legend is probably okay; at some point in a different article we'd attributed the belief that a temple was demolished to build a mosque, to local legend. The claim that Rama was born precisely there is a similar sort of belief. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the very first line its said its hypothesized but its not. Shri Ram Janmbhumi is reality as written in our ancient mnuscripts of Ramayan and Ramcharitmanas. There was also a through excavation by Archiological Survey of India that confirmed it. Scand Purana also tells about it and a inscription recoverd from the site that confirmed it. Pls remove word hypothesized and it will be,"the birthplace of Rama." Vineet uietk (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: @Vineet uietk: No consensus has been reached in the discussion above about changing the word "hypothesized" for any alternate form that would draw a distinction between events from documented history and events from religious texts. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "hypothesized" Hurricane22 (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: The topic is under discussion above. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

|}

My Request to Wikipedia is to please remove the word hypothesized from the page as it promotes the misinformation regarding to the Shri Ram Mandir In Ayodhya. Archeological Survey Of India Has proved that there was a old Ram temple beneath the Babri Structure. So the word hypothesized is Not justified in this page The Indoman 360 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Rama is a mythological figure. There's no proof that he was born at the specific site upon whnch the Ram Mandir temple currently stands. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, religion itself is mythology, but most Abrahamic Wikipedia pages refer to their stories as literature anyway. Why the double standard only here? I don't see you expressing your frustration over there. And yes, you can call it whataboutery, but the same standard must be applied everywhere in order to make Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia, whatever that standard may be.

Regarding the word 'hypothesis,' it would be preferable if selective editing is not done. The standard applied to Abrahamic religions and their figures should be applied here. I'm not asking to whitewash anything as you would do there; just at least keep the lede free from extreme bias. 'Believed' is the right word, as per me, but I guess that it's too much to ask, considering how targeted India and Hinduism-related pages are. 2409:40E3:3A:B5D6:39E1:3B6C:5941:E7F4 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "hypothesis" is the best word. I think "supposed" is probably better. There's no evidence from the Ramayana that the site where Rama was supposedly born is the site of the former Babri Masijd. This appears to have been a development in local oral tradition that emerged during the 19th or perhaps 18th century. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to request a correction to this statement to ensure that the information accurately represents the beliefs of the Hindu community. The use of the term "hypothesized" may be seen as dismissive and may not reflect the sentiments of those who hold this belief dear. Also, ASI’s(Archaeological Survey of India) findings revealed the existence of a Temple underneath the disputed structure. This phrasing may be misleading and controversial as it downplays the significance attached to the belief by millions of Hindus that Ayodhya is indeed the birthplace of Lord Rama. To describe it with such clinical detachment undermines the immense religious and cultural significance this place holds for millions. This phrasing not only hurts the sentiments of devout Hindus but also creates an unnecessary distance from an established historical and religious narrative. The belief in Ram Janmabhoomi as Rama's birthplace predates documented history and is woven into the very fabric of Hindu tradition. Archaeological evidence further strengthens this narrative, adding weight to the claims of a temple existing at the disputed site before the Babri Masjid Kiaangaj (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Rama is not mythological figure he is king of Ayodhya and ASI prove that there is temple before 1528 babar demolished that temple and build mosque

https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2010_45/50/Was_There_a_Temple_under_the_Babri_Masjid_Reading_the_Archaeological_Evidence.pdf Aman1702 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You do recognize that the paper you cite is harshly critical of the ASI's findings? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The mention of Ayodhya as the hypothesized birthplace of Ram is based on various historical and cultural perspectives, and it's essential to reflect these viewpoints without endorsing any specific belief. Wikipedia does not assert the absolute truth of any religious or historical claim but aims to present information from reliable sources, acknowledging different interpretations.

Regarding your comparison to pages on Abrahamic religions, it's important to note that Wikipedia strives to maintain neutrality across all articles (see:

WP:NPOV). If there are concerns about the representation of stories or beliefs on pages related to Abrahamic religions, those issues should be addressed individually, and corrections can be made following the same neutral point of view principle , so you can raise any specific concerns or suggestions you have on the article's talk page.Thanks. Harvici

07:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct.

Even if u will se page of the holy Girnar mountain they have not written even a single word for temple of Mata Amba, Guru Gorakhnath

These points shows that Wikipedia needs somethings to make it even more better. The Indoman 360 (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Have u ever even read about the Ramayan the holy indian book

That spot is the exact location.

The Ramayan has exact location with coordinates in it.

Do you have any proof that prophet Muhammad was born In what today is in SaudiA?

Do u have any proof that the Jesus Christ was born in what today is in Palestine?

And If u ask for any proof on basis of any ancient structure can u even think that in a country which is invaded several times can have any ancient structure well and safe and even the invaders were also evil and ruthless.

These are clearly double standards.

And you also should not write something which can hurt anyone's feelings.

You can simply write "believed"

If u want to remain as neutral. The Indoman 360 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

i know that Wikipedia can not say in favour of one side but if u completely ignore one side in every place that is wrong.

I'm not Against the point of keeping neutrality but the word hypothesized does not fit in the article as it feels biased and shows point of view of only one side

For neutrality you can write "believed to be" or something which is not hurtful to any side.

Please check these problems and solve them

Otherwise Wikipedia has been a great source of world knowledge and as a person who has been using It since more than 5 years would like this initiative to be more better and unbiased.🙂 The Indoman 360 (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As bias in sources states ' A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.' and religious epics and books are considered to be a biased source, I propose the following edit

It is located at Ram Janmabhoomi, which is believed by Hindus to be the exact location of the birth of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism, but the site is still considered a hypothesized birthplace of Rama. Harvici 07:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

can u even say that religious books are bias on religious books for Christians and muslims

By heart I respect all worshipers as I myself believe that all religiousness lead to only one god but the double standards always used against the Hinduism religious way is very wrong.

And if you want an official record of the temple I have provided a link of K K MUHAMMED the one who lead the first official excavation on old babri structure, he admits that the old Babri structure indeed was built on a older Shri Ram temple.

And believed and hypothesized are different things if the Ram Janmabhoomi has written the word believed then this page should also have the same believed at it shows a sense of neutrality and I agree as I mentioned before that Wikipedia has to maintain neutrality in all matters.

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/ram-mandir-opening-moment-of-great-fulfilment-

satisfaction-archaeologist-k-k-muhammed-2858543 The Indoman 360 (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I closed two other discussions on this same issue and am hoping to direct comments to this section. For the record, see #Not hypothesised. It is proven that it is Ram janmabhoomi. and #Change first sentence; this is a non‑controversial suggestion. If someone wants to take on some clerk work, it would be helpful to link below to any similar discussions in the archives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a serious problem here. Would all the administrators who are involved in this please respond to my questions.

The situation is as follows. We who are not administrators are not allowed to edit. Therefore, administrators have a duty to perform non-controversial edits and improvements that we non-administrators suggest.

The edit I suggest have nothing to do with conflict in relation to the right to decide what kind of building should be on this site. In fact, I know almost nothing about the history of this site, and I have only read a few sentences of the article. I simply point out that it is impossible for a serious encyclopaedia to write that a place is the ”hypothesized” birthplace of a mythological figure! The second sentence is now as crazy as this sentence: ”Cyprus is the hypothesized birthplace of Aphrodite.”

The article Hypothesis says: “A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.” The article Phenomenon says: ”A phenomenon … is an observable event.” Since the birth of Rama is a mythological event, the word “hypothesized” must be removed immediately.

There are bad things in Wikipedia that have not been corrected yet, in articles that few people read. But this is different. This article is now under intense scrutiny. But administrators are unable to change the ridiculous statement that a mythological figure has a hypothesized birthplace. Wikipedia doesn’t say that the patriarchs and their wives have a hypothesized burial site, so why do we keep the word “hypothesized” in this article? This brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Please explain why the word “hypothesized” is not removed. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree in general that problems in articles push the project toward disrepute. The way out of this one is building consensus with fellow editors. Please address your comments to them, as admins won't implement controversial edits over full protection. Your statement here hasn't expressed what you would like changed exactly; you mention removing "hypothesized", but I'm guessing from your comment in another section that you don't favor just a straight removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does need some improvements.

As being Indian i know most of mistakes on articles related to India And Indian matters.

The image of India created by British during colonial period is still somewhere inside the minds of European's. But in many aspects India's actual point is quite different from what European's see the reason is obviously Colonialism as I mentioned before. And even in this same matter of using the word "hypothesized" in birth place of Lord Shri Ram it makes us feel bad as it is matter of our faith

I'm not saying wrong about anyone's faith but if something like this would've been written on someone else's faith i would be surprised as I haven't seen Wikipedia being same on Indian faiths vs other faiths from all around the world.

One of holy peaks of our Indian faith is Girnar. On which the information is 60-80% less.

They have adequate information about the Jain temples but missing the information about the Hindu temples.

Both are actually one of u say jains or hindus but no information about the Hindu temples sounds quite wrong to me. The Indoman 360 (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Firstly, since you want me to expresse what I “would like changed exactly”: Change the second sentence to “It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, thought by believers to be the birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism.” Secondly, it is not possible to build consensus with fellow editors, if religious beliefs influence what they write. The word “hypothesized” can only be used about real, observable physical phenomena, which ”Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism” is not. The word “hypothesized” can and should be changed immediately; the only justification that is needed is that it is bad English to write “hypothesized” about a mythological event. If the article weren’t locked, anybody could do it straight away, without “building consensus”, because the word is an error. I recently made the following change in St. Pancras. I changed “Pancras of Taormina, bishop martyred in AD 40 in Sicily” to ”Pancras of Taormina, legendary (unhistorical) bishop, according to legend martyred in AD 40 in Sicily”. I changed that because the previous version was wrong. There was no “Pancras of Taormina” who was ”bishop martyred in AD 40 in Sicily”. Nobody objected. Similarly, ”Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism” does not have a birthplace, because he is not a historical figure, so there cannot be a “hypothetical birthplace” for him. You administrators, who stop the rest of us from editing, have a duty to end this farce now, this ridiculous farce with an “hypothesized birthplace” of a mythological figure. You have a duty to protect Wikipedia from sentences that present religious beliefs as facts, if you stop others from editing. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think "supposed" or " claimed" is better than hypothesized. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to continue arguing that I need to make a controversial change even when there is no consensus, but I am unlikely to change my mind. I would advise either continuing to focus on building consensus—thank you for making a concrete proposal, btw—or seeing if another uninvolved admin responds differently to your procedural points. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

How could it be controversial to say that the sentence “It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism” is incorrect? Disregarding all religious and political disputes about this site, the sentence is bad English. A mythological figure cannot have a “hypothesized birthplace” because of the meaning of the word “hypothesis”. Having said that, I understand where the word “hypothesis” might have come from. There is a religious belief that Rama was born somewhere. And one can have a hypothesis that the place discussed in the article is a place which some religious people in the past have connected to the birth of the mythological figure Rama. But the sentence “It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism” is unacceptable on linguistic grounds, because it presents the birth of Rama as an historical fact. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also support the term " believed by believers" as suggested by @Jan Arvid Götesson The Indoman 360 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The dificulty is that the second sentence must combine two ideas. The first is that the belief in Rama and his birth is a religious belief, not a historical fact. The second idea is that is it a possibility, which many people think is highly likely or proven, that this location is a location traditionally thought to be the birthplace of Rama in earlier historical periods. Many religious people today will of course think that this is the right place in the sense that historically this place has been venerated as the birthplace of Rama, AND they believe that it actually is the birthplace of Rama.

My final suggestion for the second sentence is: ”Many Hindus today believe that this site is the site that traditionally was believed to be Ram Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest from my side that

" Many people believe " rather than " Many hindus believe " as Beacuse not only hindus in India but many around the world believe it to be the place where Lord Shri Ram was born but also many non hindus for e.g muslims in India and many abroad believe and accept the spot as the birth place of Lord Shri Ram,

Like the person who led the Official ASI excavation on old Babri Structure was a Muslim named K.K MUHAMMAD And he with his full consent agreed that the place where old Babri structure stood was constructed on a razed old Lord Rama Temple. The Indoman 360 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

He even expressed his relief and congratulated the India on construction of the new Lord Shri Ram Temple The Indoman 360 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be okay with "supposed" or "claimed"; possibly "claimed by believers", or "claimed by devotees", which avoids weasel wording a little bit more. "Believed" is a problem not only because it implies the belief is widespread, but because it conflates various beliefs; that Rama was a historical figure, that he was born in the Ayodhya that stands today (my understanding is that historians believe the very real city has shifted over time, as the nearby river shifted); that he was born at the site of the Babri Masjid; that there was a temple which stood there, dedicated to his birthplace; that said temple was demolished to build the mosque. Various subsets of people hold various subsets of these beliefs, as they are entitled to do, but absent scholarly support for any of these we can only present them as beliefs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: I see that you are an administrator, and able to do something immediately. I’m glad to see that you understand correctly that the second sentence is difficult to write, because the sentence needs to reflect one religious belief (Rama is real and was born somewhere) and three historical claims (today’s Ayodhya is where ancient believers thought he was born; the mosque site is the exact site that was revered centuries ago; and there was a temple there demolished for the mosque).

  However, I point out something unrelated: a question of the meaning of English words. The current second sentence presupposes that the birth of Rama is a historical event, so the sentence must be rewritten immediately. It doesn’t matter if the rewriting is provisional. The current sentence is as embarrassing to Wikipedia as this sentence would be: ”Cyprus is the hypothesized birthplace of Aphrodite, a principal deity of Greek religion”. No consensus is needed for an edit of the second sentence. Any user is allowed to fix such a problem immediately. Fixing it immediately is as uncontroversial as correcting a misspelling. If administrators prevent us from editing the article, they take on a duty to perform uncontroversial corrections when the need is pointed out. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  While I am an administrator, I have worked on content in this area and am considered

  WP:INVOLVED. As such I would be able to implement the results of clear consensus on the talk page, but I am not permitted to make unilateral changes. I suggest you work up some proposed wording that we could come to an agreement on. Vanamonde93 (talk

  ) 00:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think something like. "According the the religious beliefs of some Hindus, the Babri Masijd was built upon the exact spot that the god Rama was born". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED says: “In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator”. This is a straightforward case, because it is a trivial case of incorrect use of an English word. If you took the principle that involved administrators are not “not permitted to make unilateral changes”, you would not be able to help a contributor who wrote this: ”I made the spelling mistake ‘Hindu Mahasaba’ in one place. Please change it to ‘Hindu Mahasaba’.” I make make that kind of trivial request.

  No consensus is needed to change a embarrassing error. Consensus is needed for the contents of the article, but not to quickly do something about the catastrophe that Wikipedia current describes the birth of a mythological figure as historical fact. Administrators can immediately change the introduction to this:

  “The Ram Mandir (lit. transl. Rama Temple) is a Hindu temple under construction in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India. According the the religious beliefs of some Hindus, it is at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, which, according to religious belief, is the birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism.”

  Administrators, PLEASE do not say that we need a discussion to reach consensus about the first sentences of the article. You must immediately insert my words, or other words that do not make the implicit claim that the birth of Rama is a historical fact. The current words might be a mistake, a blunder; I have not looked at the history. But it doesn’t matter. To a new reader, the current second sentence looks ridiculous.

  The administrators who have responded to me mix up to different things that have nothing to do with each other: On the one hand the trivial matter of an incorrectly used word which creates an embarrassment for Wikipedia, and on the other hand the obvious fact that the factual content of an article is gradually agreed upon through discussion and consensus. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Shri Ram is a historical figure of India but during British period in India his historic background was shifted to mythology by british to add their history in our syllabus.

  You people anyone here might not understand it. The Indoman 360 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Jan Arvid Götesson Trivial cases are things that'd generally not be challenged. This case is not trivial because, self-fulfillingly, of this extended discussion. In such cases, there needs to be consensus. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to request a correction to this statement to ensure that the information accurately represents the beliefs of the Hindu community. The use of the term "hypothesized" may be seen as dismissive and may not reflect the sentiments of those who hold this belief dear. Also, ASI’s(Archaeological Survey of India) findings revealed the existence of a Temple underneath the disputed structure. This phrasing may be misleading and controversial as it downplays the significance attached to the belief by millions of Hindus that Ayodhya is indeed the birthplace of Lord Rama. To describe it with such clinical detachment undermines the immense religious and cultural significance this place holds for millions. This phrasing not only hurts the sentiments of devout Hindus but also creates an unnecessary distance from an established historical and religious narrative. The belief in Ram Janmabhoomi as Rama's birthplace predates documented history and is woven into the very fabric of Hindu tradition. Archaeological evidence further strengthens this narrative, adding weight to the claims of a temple existing at the disputed site before the Babri Masjid Kiaangaj (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  @DaxServer It is a trivial observation that Wikipedia must not contain passages such as “Ram Janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism”, because that passage reads as if Rama is a historical person. You too make the mistake of referring to ”this extended discussion”. My edit request has nothing to do with this extended discussion. It was a mistake by Firefangledfeathers to close my separate request and merge it with Use of “hypothesized”.

  I can’t explain why many members of the subset of humanity who have chosen to write on this discussion page do not understand that my request is a trivial matter. Firefangledfeathers has reopened my original request; I shall continue the discussion there. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, when we mention the word 'deity' , it can be clearly interpreted as a god or goddess of a particular religion.In this instance, it is Hinduism, so the birthplace of Rama, who is a god (god of any religion cannot be a historical figure), so I think it is not implying Rama as a historical figure because any normal human being (if he or she is not extremely careful while reading as you were) would interpret the statement that Rama was not a historical figure. So going into the meaning of the meaning (like you did with hypotheses and phenomena) does not make an appropriate cause to remove the word "Hypothesized".Thanks. Harvici (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The case for "believed"

After being prompted by somebody on my talk page about the problematic "hypothesized", I revised the lead sentence as follows, but it got washed out pretty much immeidately.

A discussion followed on my talk page, in which Vanamonde93 invited me to make a case for the use of "believed". So, here are some sources:

• Bakker, Ayodhya, Part I (1984, p. 136) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFBakker,_Ayodhya,_Part_I1984 (help)

How this fort actually looked in the Kali age is reported by the English traveller William Finch (AD 1606-11):

"Heere are also the ruines of Ranichand[s] castle and houses, which the Indians acknowled[g]e for the great God, saying that he tooke flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world. In these ruines remayne certaine Brahmenes [Brahmins], who record the names of all such Indians as wash themselves in the river running thereby."[5][6]

• Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016, pp. 353–354) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFKunal,_Ayodhya_Revisited2016 (help)

Tieffenthaler visited Fyzabad and travelled the whole of Oudh during 1766-71. ... [He writes] Emperor Aurengzeb got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor'.... On the left is seen square box, raised five inches from the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4. The Hindus call it Bedi, i.e. 'the cradle'. The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where Beschan [Vishnu] was born in the form of Ram. It is said that his three brothers too were born here. Aurengzeb or Babor, according to others, got this place razed in order to deny them the noble people, opportunity of practising their supestitions.

• Hans T. Bakker quoted in Jain, Battle for Rama (2017, pp. 90–91) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFJain,_Battle_for_Rama2017 (help)

The mosque is believed by general consensus to occupy the site of the Janmasthana. After the destruction of the original temple a new Janmasthan temple was built on the north side of the mosque separated from it by a street (Bakker, Part II 1986: 144-146)

• Srivastava, The Disputed Mosque (1991, p. 78) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFSrivastava,_The_Disputed_Mosque1991 (help)

The Muslims of Ayodhya/Faizabad, like their Hindu counterparts, have several myths about their places of worship. The stories relate to the several graves, roads and mosques in Ayodhya/ Faizabad. They also believe that Emperor Babur came to Ayodhya in 1528 and destroyed the famous Ramjanambhoomi temple, to propitiate Pir Fazal Abbas Musa Aashikan.

• Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016, p. 248) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFKunal,_Ayodhya_Revisited2016 (help)

Buchanan visited Ayodhya in A.D. 1813-14, Although on the basis of an inscription, a copy of which was given to him, he refuted the Hindus' general belief prevailing at that time that all the three prominent temples at Ayodhya, Kasi and Mathura were demolished by Aurangzeb, the fact remains that even around 1810 A.D. Hindus believed and rightly believed that all the three temples at Kasi, Mathura and Ayodhya were demolished during Aurangzeb's regime.

• Griffiths, Open Spaces, Contested Places, p. 63.^[1]

It was alleged by the Hindu elements that Babur's commander-in-chief Mir Baki destroyed an existing temple at the site, which Hindus believe was a temple built to commemorate the birthplace of Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu and ruler of Ayodhya.

• Jaishankar, Communal Violence and Terrorism in India, pp. 25-26.^[2]

It was alleged that Babur destroyed an existing temple at the site, which Hindus believe was the temple built to commemorate the birthplace of Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu and ruler of Ayodhya.

• Urban, The Path of Desire, p.92.^[3]

All of this symbolic sacrifice helped lay the groundwork for the much more literal violence that erupted in 1992, when Hindu sevaks destroyed the Muslim Babri Masjid, which was believed to lie on Rama's birthplace, unleashing massive riots and killings across India and Bangladesh.

• How the Babri mosque destruction shaped India, BBC News, 6 December 2017.

On 6 December 1992, in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya, I saw a historic mosque, standing on ground believed to be the birthplace of the god Rama, demolished by riotous Hindu nationalists.

• A timeline of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, from 1858 to 2024, The Hindu, 17 January 2024.

The nation is gearing up to witness the installation of the ‘ Ram Lalla’ idol in Ayodhya on January 22, 2024. This will be a climax for the ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ movement, which for decades has sought the consecration of a temple at the site believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram — and where the Babri Masjid mosque once stood.

• Ram temple built on site of razed Babri mosque in India to open in January, Reuters, 14 September 2023.

A grand temple of Lord Ram, worshipped by millions of Hindus, will open in January in northern India at a site believed to be his birthplace, fulfilling a promise from the ruling party in a location that was a flashpoint for Hindu-Muslim violence.

It is also worth noting that, pretty much until Indian independence, the Babri Masjid was called Masjid-i Janmasthan, implying that both Hindus and Muslims believed it to be the place "Janmasthan".^[4] See also Srivastava above, where he calls it a Muslim "myth".

In the light of all this usage, I maintain that it is perfectly natural and accurate to call it as the place beilieved to be the Rama's birthplace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid these sources don't make the case you say they do. Very many of these attribute the beliefs to Hindus, including in some cases explicitly to local Hindus. Multiple other sources are discussing the belief in the existence of a temple, not in the birthplace of Rama. The compromise suggested above; attributing this belief to devotees; is the right way to go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The need to attribute belief is particularly acute if we're attributing other beliefs in the same sentence, as you do in your proposal above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Appreciate you for your strenuous effort to bring this issue to the notice to build a consensus. Many Hindu temples were built at a particular location commemorating some religious or cultural significant event. It is a fact that during Islamic rule in the medieval ages in India, the religious zealots among every Muslim ruling dynasty resorted to the destruction of Hindu/Jain/Buddhist religious sites of significance and converted many of them into mosques. Perhaps, it may be good to focus on the historical events of destruction rather than blaming Hindus for their superstitious beliefs. When the Supreme Court of India realized through the ASI report that the underlying structure beneath Babri mosque was non-Islamic (i.e. implicitly indicating to be Hindu in character), it had no other choice but to respect the long-held belief of Hindus that the disputed area was believed to have some relation with the birth of Rama, which was backed by observations from medieval-era foreign tourists who got nothing to do either with Hinduism. Editors like Vanamonde93 have a reliable track record in Wikipedia and therefore can help solve this contention. I wish that reliable sources from all viewpoints be taken to achieve consensus instead of relying only on the leftist perspective on this issue to achieve consensus. It is utterly baffling how these so-called Marxist historians mumbled with vague responses in the courtrooms when the judges posed pertinent questions. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Local people vs non-local people is a non-issue. None of the sources made that distinction. When pilgrims go to a place,they follow what the local people tell them and believe it. The point is really that the idea that the place was "Janmasthana", Rama's birthplace, existed before the mosque came into being. And, the mosque was said to have been built on that site. Tieffenthaler documents it clearly. A hundred years earlier, Finch was told that it was Rama's "house" where the "great God took flesh".

All the temple mentions I have included also say that the temple was built to commemorate the (believed) birthplace, or that it was at the spot of the (believed) birthplace. So I don't see what point you are making about "temple".

I find the HIndu vs. non-Hindu distinction also to be a non-issue because it is obviously the followers of a religion that develop beliefs and others acknowledge and accept them. That is the case here. The local Muslims knew that the place was considered the "Janmasthana" by the Hindus before the mosque was built, and the mosque continued to be called Masjid-i Janmasthan until the 1940s. The local Muslims did not reject the idea.

But here is a compromise, inspired by a suggestion by somebody below. I am fine to call it the "mythical birthplace", instead of "believed to be birthplace". All scholars that studied the issue would agree that it was a myth that there was a known birthplace of Rama. "Hypothesized" is plain wrong, for people that know enough English. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Mythical birthplace sounds perfectly apt for this scenario and multiple sources can confirm that. Looks like a go for me. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No, actually, it isn't. Ayodhya is the mythical birthplace of Rama. Sources agree on that, and add minor details of geography (on the banks of the Sarayu, etc). There isn't a single mythological source placing the birthplace of Rama at the site where the Babri Masjid was built. And as I stated above, the sources discuss a temple commemorating a birthplace, which is not the same as a temple built on the birthplace; that sort of fudging isn't okay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The Ayodhya mentioned in ancient scriptures is believed to be the modern city of Ayodhya. When we have historical sources as recorded by the European visitors that mention about Hindus viewing the Babri Masjid as the birthplace of Rama then how can we deny that observation. Every religion is based on beliefs. Even through Jesus may have been a historical person there but there seem to be no historical proof that his birth in Bethlehem from non-Christian sources.

• Biblical stories of Jesus' birth reveal intriguing clues about his times, National Geographic, 16, December, 2021.

No non-Christian source, however, describes the birth of Jesus. The only texts offering detailed accounts of Jesus’ life are early Christian writings, principally the four Gospels that were regarded as a fixed part of the New Testament by the third century A.D.

We are stressing too much on Hindu beliefs on an article that is about Ram mandir at Ayodhya and not on historicity of Rama. Had it been the latter, these arguments about clearcut mentioning that Rama is a mythical figure make perfect sense. So, we need more consensus on this aspect by further discussions. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• honsaj-vol-2.pdf (allahabadhighcourt.in) p.406, (About Sant Tulsidas, mentioning it in his work destruction of Janmabhumi temple, an excerpt from volume 2 of the Allahabad High Court's Judgement on Ayodhya in 2010)

honsaj-vol-1.pdf (allahabadhighcourt.in) (volume 1 of the aforesaid judgement is also attached for perusal)

20- That in the literature of Valmiki Ramayan, Atharva Veda, Yajur Veda, Skanda Purana and Goswami Tulsidas, description is found about the disputed site in Ayodhya being the birthplace of Lord SriRama. Even in the ‘Tulsi Doha Shatak’ of Tulsi Das, there is mention about construction of mosque by Mir Baqi after demolishing the Sri Rama Janmbhumi temple on the command of Babar. The ‘Kavitavali’ composed by Goswami Tulsidas contains references of the excesses and atrocities committed by the Mughal emperors and the ‘Dohawali’ composed by him gives a clear picture of the then social and political situation.” (E.T.C.)

• honsaj-vol-2.pdf (allahabadhighcourt.in) p.408 (About Rama's birthplace being prescribed as a pilgrimage site in ancient Hindu sciptures, an excerpt from volume 2 of the Allahabad High Court's Judgement on Ayodhya in 2010)

23- The disputed site has been described as the birthplace of Lord Rama. In the treatises, ‘Purva Rama Tapyopnishad’ and ‘Veda- Vedangas’ the Janmbhumi has been described as pilgrimage of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)

• Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016, pp. 405) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFKunal,_Ayodhya_Revisited2016 (help) (About mention of Rama birthplace in a Persian Sanad)

Mahant Gyan Das, the chief Abbot of the Nirvāṇī Akhara of Hanumangarhi, is in proud possession of two Mughal sanads which are produced and discussed below:
The first Sanad granting six bhihas of land for the construction of Hanuman Tila has been issues on the 13th Ramzan of 1008 A.H., i.e. 28th March, 1600. This date falls under the reign of Akbar. Therefore, Akbar was the Emperor, by whose order this Sanad granting six bighas of land for the construction (तामीर) of Hanuman Tila, was issued. Akbar's association with Ayodhyā is shown for the first time through this Sanad.
This Sanad was renewed on 8th July, 1723 to Abharayarama by Mir Jumla Muazzam Shah Khan Khanan Bahadur Muzaffar Jung Turkhan who was Sadar-us-Sadur, i.e. Superintendent of Endowments since 21st October, 1719.
A very significant feature of this Sanad is that the writer of this deed claims that he is writing it at the holy place which is the birthsite of Rāma. He uses the Persian word 'maulud' which means जन्मभूमि. Thus, the word जन्मभूमि of Rāma was used in the Persian text as early as 1723, i.e. almost 3000 years ago.

The first reference is about mentioning of Mir Baqi's acts by Tulsidas. It has been populaly that Tulsidas, a devotee of Rama and a poet, didn't mention it in his most famous work 'RamcharitManas' about destruction of the temple by Mir Baqi. This claim also mentioned in the volume 1 of the judgement in page 93. However, in his other work he clearly mentioned about the event and the same has been reported in the final judgement of the High court in 2010.

The second reference is about the ancient Hindu scriptures prescribing Rama's birthplace as a pilgrimage to visit.

In the third reference, a Sanad (grant) by Akbar was renewed later during which the Persian equivalant of the word birthplace has been mentioned. This was from the aforesaid book by Kunal Kishore. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so what? One historical figure believed he was standing at Rama's birthplace. No doubt a lot of others share that belief. But a belief it remains, and not a universal one at that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Why Hindus believed that place to be Janmasthan is not the point. Every religion on Earth is based on some set of believes (however hilarious or non-sensical they may sound to a rational mind). Was a temple that commemmorated their belief about Rama's birth got destroyed by Mughal forces is the main point. Can you prove with reliable sources that Hindus on a whole or most of them didn't believe Ayodhya to be the birthplace of their God Rama and also that Tulsidas's observation was not a reliable one. Many historical people, be it Hindus (such as Tulsidas), Muslims (such as Muzaffar Jung Turkan) or Christian visitors mentioned about Rama janmastan being connected to Babri Masjid. The references provided by me earlier are valid ones for everyone to see. May be this is your opinion and I respect it. Let other Wikipedia co-editors also provide their valuable opinions so that we can achieve consensus. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Underlying structure

... underlying structure beneath Babri mosque was non-Islamic (i.e. implicitly indicating to be Hindu in character) - That is

WP:SYNTH. We ought not to derive conclusions ourselves here. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c

) 13:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

DaxServer Eminent archelogists B. B. Lal, B. R. Mani, K. K. Muhammed who were directly involved in the excavations of ASI mentioned about the Hindu character. My above quote was based on these archeologists whose testimonies had impact in the judgements of Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court of India in settling the Ayodhya dispute.

In first excavation, we found Hindu Symbols in Mosque: KK Muhammad, The Times of India, 24 January 2024. (Archelogist K. K. Muhammed about 1976-77 Ayodhya excavations)

At the site where we got 12 pillars, they found 50 with the base and in 17 rows, indicating the presence of a huge temple. They also found ‘amalaka’ (a notched stone disk that sits on top of Hindu Temple ‘shikhara’) and ‘pranala’ (discharge outlet attached to the wall of a Hindu temple sanctum) and that too ‘magar pranala’ (crocodile-faced), which must be in a temple and not anywhere else. He also found over 263 terracotta idols. Do you expect this in a mosque? Then there was an inscription which clearly says that this temple is dedicated to Mahavishnu who killed Bali and Ravan. Also, in my work, I was the only Muslum… but in Mani’s excavation one fourth of the labourers engaged in earthwork were Muslims deputed to ensure that there was no bias or manipulation. Everything was videographed in the presence of an expert committee comprising independent people like lawyers and magistrates. The truth came out and proved some historians just wanted to complicate the issue. Muslims were ready (to find an amicable solution) and wanted to settle the issue without bloodshed. But a group of historians would not allow that.

• 'Make Ayodhya report public': Archaeologist who led excavations urges Centre , India Today, 27 January 2024. (Archelogist B. R. Mani's words about 2003 Ayodhya excavations)

Remnants of several temples at different layers were found. The one immediately below the 16th-century Babri Masjid dated back to the 12th century, says Mani..."Sixteen years I kept mum. I did not speak anything because I had given the court an affidavit that we would not speak about it. But now when the courts have given orders. Now, we can speak," he says.

• Left historians prevented resolution of Babri Masjid dispute, says KK Mohammed, former ASI regional head, Firstpost, 21 January 2016. (Archelogist K. K. Muhammed lamenting about some historians' role in creating communal discord on Ayodhya dispute.)

Talking to Firstpost on his claims made in the book, Muhammed said the the action committee held several meetings under the leadership of Irfan Habib, the then chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research. "The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brain washing by the Leftist historians. A set of historians including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before 19th century and Ayodhya is Bhudhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib,RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Ben and Akthar Ali," he said.

• Archaeologist B B Lal who led excavation at Ramjanmabhoomi site dies at 101, The Indian Express, 11 September 2022. (Article about B. B. Lal and his findings in 1976 Ayodhya excavations.)

It was in 1990 that Lal wrote about the “pillar-base theory” on the basis of his excavations at Ayodhya in the 1970s. He claimed to have found temple-like pillars which, he said, would have formed the foundation of the Babri Masjid. Lal’s findings were published in the magazine ‘Manthan’. His theory was later recognised as the interpretive framework of the Allahabad High Court-appointed excavation team in 2003...In an interview to The Indian Express in the wake of the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case in 2019, Lal had said: “Archaeological investigations had clearly established that there was a temple at the site before the construction of the mosque, and we were happy that the Supreme Court took due notice of this fact in pronouncing its judgment.”

If there is any mistake prevailing on my side then do inform me. Thank you. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@

reliable sources treat it so. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c

) 18:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The above quotes by archeologists as reported in reliable sources is supposed to have some weightage. Few sentences can be added on the observations of these archeologists who are experts in their field. Without archeological evidence Supreme court couldn't have concluded that the underlying structure was non-Islamic. Perfectly agree though with Wikipedia policy on original research. It is to clarify that my previous comment which you have highlighted was based on the observations of the aforementioned experts whose work has indeed influenced the verdict. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Underconstruction?

I think construction of the temple is complete. CometVolcano (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

No.. Only the consecration of the temple is done.. Temple is still under construction.. Consecration≠Building completion! Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheProEditor11 The infobox says it was completed on 22 January, 2024. CometVolcano (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. This should be changed. @Firefangledfeathers (Sorry for pinging) Please edit it and change it to - Under construction (Consecrated on 22 January 2024) or something else like/better than this! Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My best read on this discussion and the prior ones on this topic is that there is now rough consensus to change the way the infobox says the temple is completed. The specific change you propose is somewhat complex, since the parameter being used in the infobox will still have the word "completed" in bold. Any suggestions for a way to complete this request? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Under such circumstances, is there any way to write a new parameter like "Consecration"? If yes, you can change it. One more opinion from my side that in the completed parameter, we can write "Under construction (only consecrated on 22 January 2024)". TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I realized we already had the functional_status parameter saying the temple is "Under construction", so I merged the consecration info into that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 January 2024

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the below incomplete infomation:

"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid mosque, which was built in the 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, ..."

To the correct information that is history of India and verified by law (high court of India):

"The site which is called Janma bhoomi (birth place of Hindu god Rama) with iconic temple was destroyed by Islamic king Babur during 16th century CE and built Babri Masjid mosque." WikiUserSince2012 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: this controversial change would require consensus. If that develops, please re-activate the request template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request 2 on 26 January 2024

This edit request to Ram Mandir has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Change:

  It is believed the temple was attacked and destroyed by the

  first Mughal emperor, Babur, in 1528, in his series of temple raids across northern India.^[1] Later, in the same year, under the order of Babur [...]

  to:

  In 1528, under the order of Babur