Jump to content

Talk:Babri Masjid/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

What article is about what

@Vanamonde93: Where does this article (Babri Masjid) fit into the following?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, some of these articles have zero neutrality.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Toddy1: I disagree about a couple of these. Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is about a previously created trust that was planning the construction of a temple, and hoped to take possession of the land after the Supreme Court's decision. The SC, however, ordered the constitution of a new trust, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra; the Nyas is thus rendered essentially irrelevant, and its article should just be an overview of it's short existence, with brief context commensurate with WP:DUE. Babri Masjid is about the mosque; its construction, history, architecture (if sources are available), and destruction. Ram Janmabhoomi needs to be about the concept of Rama's birthplace; there is no piece of the history of this site that does not have dedicated articles. If we do not want an article about that concept, that page needs to be folded into Ayodhya dispute, which is the overview article. Content about the concept of a birthplace is, of course, dominated by this particular site, but is not exclusively material about this site; that's also where analysis of how this site came to be seen as Rama's birthplace belongs. Finally, there is also Archaeology of Ayodhya, which is about the excavations and their interpretations (and which is another reason Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be just about the site). Pardon the long reply, but I think this addresses your questions from both sections. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    There's also Ram Rath Yatra, about the 1990 political rally. Incidentally, which articles do you think are lacking in neutrality? Not disputing that there are a few, but specifics are always useful. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we need some sort of "roadmap" that goes in all the related articles that explains the relationship between them; your explanation is good - maybe you could turn it into a standard paragraph at the end of the lead of each article; another solution would be a template. Template:Ayodhya debate lists some/all of the articles (and some others) does not meet this need since it explains nothing. Two editors have expressed an objection to Dr2Rao adding cut-and-pasted stuff that is making all these articles clones of each other, but I do not see how he/she could possibly be sure that it is the wrong thing to do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Your suggestion of a roadmap is something we should think further about, but Dr2rao's actions are not excused by the lack of clarity. WP:DUE applies, as does WP:CONSENSUS. Having been told to stop indiscriminately copying information back and forth, Dr2rao needs to stop doing so and obtain consensus for their changes. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you look at Talk:Ayodhya dispute#Was there a riot on 6 December 1992, Dr2Rao had removed mention of a riot on 6 December and inserted mention of other riots in other cities that happened once news got out about the demolition of the mosque. Kautilya3 said that "The post-demolition riots are not the 'Ayodhya dispute'."
  • If you assume (as I did) that the Ayodhya dispute article was about the dispute, then we would be right to reinstate mention of the riot on 6 December, and remove mention of later riots in other cities.
  • But, if the Ayodhya dispute is the overview article, then Dr2Rao was right to mention the post-demolition riots, and and you can see his arguments for deleting mention of the riot on 6 December.
I thought that the dispute was a topic in itself, and the Liberhan Commission and the 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute were subtopics of that. I thought that the dispute article should deal with the issues that are relevant to the court cases and past and present local and central government decisions (including the railing decision of 1857/59). I am not sure that it is a good basis for an overview.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not logically see what other title could serve as an overview, and I don't see why anything in the current Ayodhya dispute article prevents it from being an overview. Indeed, if something else is written as an overview, we'd need to delete Ayodhya dispute as a POVFORK. I don't see any material therein that doesn't belong in an overview. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling it a Mosque

Babri was not a mosque, it was a disputed structure built by Mir Baki, as per Supreme Court Verdict on Shri Ram Janmabhoomi on 9th November 2019 YS...896 (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit of 30 September 2020 as a copyright violation. The source was: Fatima, Komal (30 September 2020). "Babri Masjid Demolition Case: Court Acquits LK Advani, MM Joshi, 30 Others". BOL News. Retrieved 30 September 2020. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposals of additions

. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean to copy-paste something in here, TrangaBellam? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

~~

Hindu nationalists did not demolish the mosque, some Hindu extremists demolished it

Hi! Please WP:SIGN your talk page posts. As for your request:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Inshirah Zafar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories

Hey kautilya3, why do you think the categories "destruction of religious buildings" and "violence against Muslims in asia" should be removed from this article? Crainsaw (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Because this page is not about the "destruction". It is about the (former) mosque. There is a page called Demolition of Babri Masjid, which already has the required categories.
More generally, you are a newbie editor, who hasn't yet taken time to understand how Wikpedia works and all that exists here. Your self-assurance and tendency to edit war are going to get you into trouble. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 demolition is a synonym destruction and now that I think about it demolition might be the wrong term to use since its mostly used when something is legally destroyed, destruction is more used when something is illegally destroyed and since this was an act of terrorism, I will start a new discussion about changing the name of the article Crainsaw (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
btw don't just assume I am new, I used to have another account when the pandemic started but left it inactive in early 2022 now a friend convinced me to join Wikipedia again Crainsaw (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This page and Demolition of Babri Masjid have been around long before the pandemic. So nothing else explains your unusual interest in these topics at this time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 I recently visited India and the city of ayodhya and when I asked the locals about the abandoned building, they told me tge the story so I looked it up on Wikipedia Crainsaw (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Which abandoned building? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 the mosque, these days it looks like abandoned building with a ton of police around it Crainsaw (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no building there, abandoned or otherwise. It has been cleared away more than a decade ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 there are still small visible remininants remaining which were guarded by police Crainsaw (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not an "abandoned building".[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Construction of mosque has not yet started. Please refer to various news reports.

115.98.235.85 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Asgharali Engineer

Is his book eligible for this article? Is he a scholar? Timovinga (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Successor-Masjid Mohammad bin abdullah link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Bin_Abdullah_Masjid

Edit the successor of the site. Kkllnnmm (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The Successor is already wikilinked to the relevant article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete article

Sorry, but the reason why supreme court of India gave this decision isn't clear !!! No, brief about the evidence found & archeological remarks on that disputed site. Please, add some clarification. This, article seems incomplete giving a sense of judgement instead pf putting the views of both the parties. 111.223.1.116 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Masid k niche jo ram ke murti mile hai wo court ki dekh rekh m khudai huyi hai iska koi evidence hai court k pass 2409:40E3:100C:B9D:24F0:B1A5:B355:AE82 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested change in wordings in the article

Since the report by ASI confirmed that there existed a Hindu structure beneath the Babri Masjid and the findings upheld by Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, shouldn't the phrase "many Hindus believe was built upon the site of Ram janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama" in the opening paragraph (and other such instances elsewhere in the article) be modified to remove the words "many Hindus believe"? The belief is only restricted to the actual existence of Rama, the existence of a temple at that place is a fact and should not be debatable. 103.220.30.110 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a couple of issues with that. First, we give scholarly sources greater weight than the ASI. Second, the ASI's basic findings (which are generally accepted, I believe) are that there is evidence of a Hindu structure beneath the mosque. The ASI's findings have nothing to say about the birthplace of Rama; that remains an article of faith, and needs to be framed as such. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes the archaeological findings of a temple has nothing to do with the claim that Ram was born here. It's a different claim. Capitals00 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. ASI has yet to post any photos of the archaeological site which contains the remains of any hindu deities. Kkllnnmm (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Do you have any paper supporting this? Most of the papers I am reading are suggesting that the results of the ASA investigation were inconclusive [2] [3] [4] Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: For which bit? I said "basic" intentionally: I don't believe anyone disputes that structures were found below the mosque that were not part of the mosque. I don't believe it's generally accepted that those constituted a temple: that part is controversial, and the data are considered inconclusive. And no scholarly source accepts it as evidence of the demolition of a temple, and of course where Rama's birthplace lies is an article of faith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I mean, you said Second, the ASI's basic findings (which are generally accepted, I believe) are that there is evidence of a Hindu structure beneath the mosque. I took that as you accepting there was a temple, my apologies for misintepreting you. Would you mind reverting Wikidrifterr's recent additions to the lead, which basically uncrticially repeat the Hindu temple claim as fact? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Well I was imprecise, so no apologies required; I should perhaps have said "evidence of a non-mosque structure", which is generally assumed to be Hindu but I don't think sources investigate that in detail. I have reverted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I do agree with your view on take on this. Appreciate that you put your points so well. However, I would like to suggest a small correction about the sentence containing the word hypothesized in the article's lede. Foreign travelers such as William Finch, during their visits to Ayodhya, have mentioned in their works that the local Hindus of that time believed that Vishnu took the avatar as Rama at that disputed site. Also, it was observed by some of them that the belief that the commemorating temple-related birth was destroyed during Mughal rule (i.e. Babur or Aurangzeb) was evident among Hindus. So, it is better to rephrase that sentence mentioning that, Hindus believed that the Babri masjid and its immediate surroundings to be the birthplace of Rama an aspect that foreign travelers observed. However, this belief is both supposed and contested by various scholars. My suggestion is to make sure that the information should not be contaminated by the opinions of scholars due to their ideologies. Some historians who took the approach of Marxist historiography tend to blend their opinions to influence the court proceedings and public discourse. They ultimately failed to convince the courts. Some even seem to have accepted their ignorance in Persian, and Sanskrit and relied on English works. At the same time, some highly emotional Hindu activists try to respond to this issue with emotion and anger rather than critical reasoning. So, Please think about this suggestion mentioned above about rephrasing the sentence and any discussion on it is welcome. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hindu activists?

Hi please use another word here, activist is not a word that should be used here. That was invasive, offensive action violating the worship place of another religious group and resulted in most number of deaths of the group that was attacked. The word “extremist” seems more appropriate.

// On 6 December 1992, a large group of Hindu activists belonging to the Vishva Hindu Parishadand allied organisations demolished the mosque, triggering riots all over the Indian subcontinent, resulting in the death of around 2,000–3,000 people. //2001:14BB:AA:917B:5447:181B:56CE:646F (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babri_Masjid/Archive_2&oldid=1236818546"