Jump to content

Talk:Bhojshala

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

Edits of this article.

[edit]

This article has been heavily edited with parts dropped in from DHAR (city in India). A number of assertions have been made without proper citation, in violation of WIKI guidelines. Moreover, there has been a poorly-worded attempts to distort the historical evidence to advance Hindu nationalist causes. In accord with WIKI guidelines, the changes will be reverted and the matter should be thrown open to discussion prior to edits. WIKI is not a forum for advancing particular agendas, political, religious or otherwise. Those joining in the WIKI community are expected to follows its rule. If you join the club there are club rules. Simple.

Oh dear, most recent edits show that there is no desire to play by the rules. Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX#SOAPBOX and also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

This is also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverDingbat (talk • contribs) 10:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll let it sit for a while and see if people who wish to participate want to follow the rules or not. Thanks RoverDingbat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoverDingbat (talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits made to this article by 117.254.240.64. These have been reverted. RoverDingbat

Our friend http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/59.90.104.141 who is sitting in Goa at Santa Cruz should usefully create an identity for himself. The additions made add nothing to the article and point to repeated assertions from the religious right which cannot be supported by the facts. They will be edited or deleted if there is no interaction in the talk page. --Shirazibustan (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Shirazibustan[reply]

Indeed! And our friend 182.64.241.208 is sitting in Delhi has edited the article excluding the Jains. On what authority? The sculpture mentioning Sarasvati is a Jain image, and the inscriptions and other evidence point to Jainism. Jains have equal claims and this complex question cannot be reduced to a simple hindu v. muslim disagreement.Zippymarmalade (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow wikipedians. Somebody in Mumbai, https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2405:204:a102:e172::1cb:78b1, who has not bothered to join wikipedia, has inserted an unsupported statement that the tombs in the campus were "forecefully" added. There is absolutely no evidence for this. Dhar was reduced to ruins in the wars between the Parmars and the Solankis, the latter especially sacking the place and removing the libraries, as we know from inscriptions of the time. The site, effectively abandoned and empty, was slowly reinhabited in the 1300s. There is no "forcefully" in the matter as far as any historical evidence goes, if it can be found, then it needs to be cited. Edits have been made accordingly. --Shirazibustan

Dear fellow wikipedians. Once again the matter is heating up, and wikipedians might as well be told: a contributor (who has not bothered to create an account and appears to be sitting in Chattisgarh at IP address 2409:40c4:3f:ae7f:2852:1694:fa14:a277) has changed the description of this monument from "building" to "temple." The matter emerges because on March 12, 2024, as Ishita Mishra writes in The Hindu, the Indore Bench of the MP High Court asked the ASI to investigate the monument on hearing a writ petition that the bulding be handed over to Hindus and Muslims barred from using it. The court rightly ordered that the building be "demystified" and that it be documented scientifically by the ASI, the competent authority in the matter. Assertions that it is a "temple" are nothing more than that -- unsubstantiated assertions. It is certainly a "building" or "protected monument". Meanwhile, arguments can't be won by simply changing wikipedia. Shirazibustan

Further Vandalism

[edit]

With Vasant Panchmi falling on a Friday, the person at 14.98.222.9 at Kanpur it seems has vandalised the opening paragraph. This has been reverted. --Zippymarmalade (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another unwarranted assertion has been entered. Under Bhoja the contributor (not logged in as a wikipedian), has added that the king was a devotee of Durgā. There is no evidence for this in the item cited, so the text has been reverted. --Zippymarmalade (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested site and its documentation.

[edit]

Had a look at this and I cannot help but come to the conclusion that there was a distinct effort on the part of http://ip-address-lookup-v4.com/lookup.php?ip=117.254.76.170 to chop up the text and corrupt it with insertions from other WIKI articles. I have restored it back to the original which is factual and informative.

This article deals with a contested site. There are strongly-held but conflicting religious beliefs held about the location: Hindus, Muslims and Jains all claim the site and there is a long controversy before the courts in India. This merits coverage in a separate section in the article, certainly. But the parties must conform to WIKI principles and not insert commentary in favor of their respective views into the text. Moreover, in recounting the different opinions, WIKIPEDIA is not a platform for projecting a particular partisan view, it is there to record research available in published sources. Thank you. RoverDingbat

Terminology

[edit]

Some of the edits introduced were reductionist, but there is a way around the problem that should suit all parties. Clearer, simpler and to the point is usually for the best. The opening paragraph is certainly not incorrect as it stands. 06 October 2012 Zippymarmalade.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhoj Shala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The illustratons to the this article.

[edit]

The inclusion of a modern print of Sarasvavtī has nothing to do with the site, and does not help the reader understand this partiicular location or the building in Dhār. The image of Sarasvatī belongs more properly in the article on Sarasvatī herself. There is no link of this art work to the site covered by the article. The same goes for the modern image of Bhoja set up in Bhopal. This is not at Dhār. This picture could find a place in the article on Bhopal, or the article on king Bhoja. So it is suggested that both move to their appropriate place.Shirazibustan (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported assertions made in text of this article (2023)

[edit]

Recent additions to this article are made on assertions not based in the known sources. We read: "an historic temple dedicated to Vak Devi, a form of Goddess Saraswati, forcefully converted into mosque..." The problem here are several. There is no evidence this building was a temple. Modern traditions regard it as a school, thus Bhojshala, which we have from the writing of Lele. The form of the building is unlike any kind of temple. As to the dedication to Sarasvati, this comes from the inscription mentioned later on in the article. But in the inscriptions section we can also see there is a second big inscription (now kept on the back wall of the building) dedicated to Kurma, Vishnu's Torise incarnation. So why isn't the "temple" dedicated to Kurma? Finally, as to the "forceful conversion".. there is simply no evidence. We just don't know much about the history of the building in the 1300s and later. The edits made should be reverted in due course. Zippymarmalade (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Maula and campus buildings.

[edit]

This article is about the building known as the Bhojshala -- discussion of Kamal al-Din and the Sufi tombs nearby are not directly relevant and will only confuse readers looking for a clear statement of the known facts. A separate article needs to be written on tombs etc., something I will attempt to do in the coming weeks. @Shirazibustan Shirazibustan (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhojshala&oldid=1213483567"