Talk:Gyanvapi Mosque/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

File:Kashi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kashi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Gyanvapi-mosque.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used to stoke Hindutva nationalism.

[user: jimmywelsch] many lives have been lost in India due to religious Conflicts caused by fake histories that find place in Articles like this on Wikipedia. It’s very important that these kind of articles are Very closely monitored for biases and fake histories. 2A01:598:81B3:7D32:C932:E7F1:BE88:2784 (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Fake histories - ?

Gyanvapi is one of the few cases, where we have incontrovertible evidence of Aurangzeb demolishing a temple. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information for fear of "stoking" something or other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

Hindu Temple 2402:8100:3022:3ABF:3DF1:E2F5:DA7E:C961 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2022 (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. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Gyanvapi Masjid

Gyanvapi Masjid was constructed on its own site, their was no Temples at that time. BJP RSS Hindutva Sanghis are trying to manipulate this. 43.241.192.133 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum but I am genuinely interested about how you folks explain the southern wall? Did it pop out of nowhere? Was it the northern wall of an adjacent temple that fell down of its own? (Factoid: Anjuman Intezamia Masjid had once claimed of the wall to be a recent artefact installed by communal Hindus.) TrangaBellam (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

213.130.121.185 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The fascist Hindu claims are manipulative and imaginary without any concrete evidence. This site is and was a mosque

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

I am requesting you to edit wikipedia article that Gyanvali mosque was built after destruction of shiva temple. There is no proof about that, not even proved by any government. Without any offical claim..you should not mention that on wikipedia. 2409:4052:2E97:50EF:0:0:200A:8312 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Reliable sources have been cited. Please consult them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

False and manipulated information. Please save India from communal riots.

False and manipulated information. There were no temples or remains of Shiva prior to the construction of the mosque. The right wings are making false claims for their next election campaign.

Requesting Wikipedia to delete or take down the current information until proven. Thank You. 117.241.59.95 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Reliable sources have been cited. Please consult them. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sensitive Page

Both Gyanwapi Mosque/Kashi Vishwanath temple & krishnajanmbhoomi temple complex/Shahi idgah temples are very sensitive issues.The matter is already in the court. Any vandalism here should be fully protected. Storycorrectionlife (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022 (2)

Please delete the information posted in the entire page as its false information and not proven. History is being rewritten for political interests and are not true. A major case is happening in India on the same issue. Kindly delete the information to avoid spread of fake news and instilling communal issues.

Thank You 117.241.59.95 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2022 (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. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

There is a straight away claim in the beginning that the mosque was build over a temple, although this claim is taken from the books written by Britishers just before or after the war of independence 1857. It is a known fact that a divide between two communities was the need of time in that era. However I suggest the words such as 'claimed in so and so books' should to very much visible instead of just putting ref number. A normal reader gets the opinion that it's a fact instead of a claim. To me it is very important keeping in view the current situation in India where religious divide is widening. Writing history pages based on opinion can be a blunder. Jaffar71 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2021 (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. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I am planning to add quotations from the sources so that it is clear what they say. But we use WP:In-text attribution only if there is disagreement among scholarly sources. Claims of any interested parties will be attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request regarding a statement pertaining to Varanasi Court ruling to the ASI

This query is regarding the statement "The court's ruling runs up against the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which states that any place of worship shall be maintained as it existed on 15 August 1947.". This statement appears illogical and arbitrary on the face of it, because the Court has not made any ruling suggesting a "change in status to the Mosque". All that the court has done is to ask the ASI to investigate the truth of the claim that the Mosque was built after demolishing a temple, which claim the defendants had stoutly denied. In the interests of truth, the Court has asked for an investigation. If, based on the results of the ASI investigation report, the Court goes on to suggest an alteration of status in the place of worship, then and only then will the ruling be said to go against the 1991 law. Hence, that statement could be removed, if noone has objection to this.

"Hours after the Varanasi court gave its ruling, Sunni Central Waqf Board chairman Zufar Ahmad Farooqui said the order will be challenged in the high court".[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

History?

TrangaBellam, I am not sure why the History section has been converted into viewpoints. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: - Take a look, again. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I will be adding content from Elk and Desai. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Spelling

Can we standardise the spelling to "Vishveshwar"? It is supported by Goole ngram viewer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do. I have not much of a view. I was facing a similar problem about which of the many transliterations to choose, while writing the article on Karkota Dynasty.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing again to "Vishweshwar" [2], which also meshes with "Vishwanath". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know if there exists any Indian equivalent of PACER (law)? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. But I do know that the Supreme Court judgements are online somewhere. They show up on web searches. But I have neglected to store the links. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

New Source

Lazzaretti, Vera (2021-05-04). "Religious Offence Policed: Paradoxical Outcomes of Containment at the Centre of Banaras, and the 'Know-How' of Local Muslims". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 44 (3): 584–599. ISSN 0085-6401. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding content

Extorc, please make the bare minimum effort to maintain the flow of the content; you are not a newbie. And you are running afoul of WP:NOTNEWS.

• Our article notes that on 9 September 2021, the High Court of Uttar Pradesh had impugned the order of lower court, which allowed for the ASI survey of the complex. Since you claim of a "survey" being conducted in 2022, it appears that the Sep' 2021 ruling was overturned by some higher judicial authority - please add the relevant details?

• Who is conducting this "survey"? ASI?
• "Videography" and "survey" are two distinct approaches with little in common - please fixate on either of them.

• Who is AIM? The acronym has not been declared.
• What are lawyers doing in the survey of a historical site?

• What is the role of "Advocate Commissioner"?

• Is it you claim that the survey was scheduled to be completed within 2 days?
• submitted to the court till 17 May - you mean, by 17 May? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Who is AIM? The acronym has not been declared. - It is Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, I will define that acronym. >>> Extorc.talk 04:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it you claim that the survey was scheduled to be completed within 2 days?, I have corrected this to "on 7 May" instead of "till 7 May". >>> Extorc.talk 04:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

this source calls this survey a videographic survey, I have changed the order to be of a videographic survey and in the remaining parts, I plan to fixate on "survey". >>> Extorc.talk 04:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

you mean, by 17 May?, this has been corrected. >>> Extorc.talk 04:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Who is conducting this "survey"? ASI? -The survey is being conducted by A 54-member team, led by advocate commissioner Ajay Kumar Misra >>> Extorc.talk 05:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What are lawyers doing in the survey of a historical site, I'm not sure, and don't have any source to support this but possibly the lawyers are present to oversee and confirm the impartiality of the survey. >>> Extorc.talk 05:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the role of "Advocate Commissioner"?, the role of an Advocate Commissioner in Indian judiciary is discovery of facts on behalf of the court, which is also what Ajay Kumar Mishra is doing in this case. >>> Extorc.talk 05:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• this source calls this survey a videographic survey - I understand it to be a kind of non-intrusive survey.

• That being said, my question about the Sep. '21 HC order is unanswered.

• I am interested about the qualification of the team and whether they are from ASI or a similar organization. The strength of the team is a harmless factoid to have.
• Thanks for the information about Adv. Commissioner. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am still in the process of reading about the 21 Sept HC ruling.
  I also don't have any information about the team and its relation with ASI.
  >>> Extorc.talk 07:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam It appears that your question about a Higher court dismissing the HC stay on the survey is actually the subject of a SC plea. >>> Extorc.talk 10:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nah. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You write, [..] to conduct daily prayers of the idols at the outer wall of the mosque and protection of the idols.

Is it your claim that one of the mosque walls has got Hindu idols in it?

Livelaw reports that the petitioners sought access to pray at a Hindu shrine behind the western wall of the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex!

I have nuked the entire section - please do not attempt to restore it. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Why was this "videographic survey" commissioned - did someone from the Mosque claim that such idols were mere fantasies of the petitioners? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

How can a Shiv Ling discovered by a non-intrusive "videographic survey"? Was it lying in the open for all these centuries, waiting for Misra to turn up with a camera?

Kautilya3, any comments? The entire episode is hazy. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It is all a big circus, a distraction from the current and urgent problems facing the Indian economy. I support your decision for nuking the section. When the dust settles, we can write a decent summary of what actually happened. There is no need for a blow-by-blow account of the everyday drama. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Precisely - this hardly deserves a couple of lines, as of now.

The Scroll report is succinct:

Petitioners [claim] that an image of Hindu deity Shringar Gauri exists at the back of the western wall of the mosque.

[T]he shivling was found after draining a pond [..] reportedly used for wuzu, the Islamic practice of washing before prayers. [AIM claims it] to be "something that was used as a technique to propel the fountain. You can see a hole on top of it and faucets all around it."

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

On claim of pre existing Buddhist temple

Why recent change (made in the last few hours) suggesting that it may have been made on a Buddhist temple? The source mentioned (book by Catherine Asher) has no mention of any Buddhist temple, just a Hindu temple. SuhitaSaha1205 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Vandalism - reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User Samaq repeatedly vandalising to remove history

Please protect this page from vandalism. This particular user is repeatedly removing the history as a Shiva temple. SuhitaSaha1205 (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Samaq: Explain your removal of well sourced content. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

He got blocked. >>> Extorc.talk 18:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yet another banker

Yet another banker-turned-writer is now masquerading as a "historian" on Indian media. He was apparently appointed as the Director of the Nehru Centre in London in 2019 (by the Nehru bhakts in Delhi of course).

Now he wants to tell us that Mughals were "foreigners" and the Gyanvapi mosque is an Indian vs. foreigner issue.[3] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Umm....Wont this come under WP:NOTAFORUM? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Latitude is allowed to experienced editors. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really. But all within limits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

Two maps in the infobox is overkill. Can we force one of them to be not displayed unless chosen by a reader? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I see only one map (that of India). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Me too पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies - I am not sure why was I shown both the maps, yesterday. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I see one map, with options given to either see India, or UP, or both.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

Name of the building - to be changed from "Gyanvapi Mosque" to "Gyanvapi Mandir" AND Caption - to be changed from "Gyanvapi Mosque" to "Gyanvapi Mandir" BRAHMA1237 (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022 (2)

Remove " demolition of temple" because it is controversial and it's pending in judicial of india Suhailch41 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. >>> Extorc.talk 21:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Source

• Banaras: Urban Forms and Cultural Histories
• https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9912871525502121 TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed update to Muslim Claims section

TrangaBellam, what are your views on the below change:

Most Muslims of the city however reject the narrative produced by Hindu as well as Colonial accounts.

to

Most Muslims of the city reject the temple destruction narratives produced by scholarly, Hindu and Colonial accounts.

Rationale:

1. "however" is awkward in a fresh section / sub-section.
2. Muslim claims mentioned in this section also go against scholarly accounts in this matter, not just Hindu and British accounts. Webberbrad007 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I am copy-editing the article from a fresh vantage. Once I arrive at the concerned section, I might incorporate your changes if they appeal to me. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I will make this update in the meanwhile for the reasons stated in my post as I don't see any objection. Webberbrad007 (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Page number

Hello TrangaBellam, I see you reverted my request to provide page numbers. Can you please provide the page numbers for the Dumper source? Thanks.VR _talk 06:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Anticipating increased focus on this article, I will be changing all refs to sfn within a day or two. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Cases in Colonial India

• HC Dismissal TrangaBellam (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentations etc.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board General Secretary Khalid Saifullah Rahmani said to Press Trust of India,

"In 1937, in the case of Din Mohammad v. Secretary of State, the court had decided on the basis of oral testimony and documents that this entire complex (Gyanvapi Masjid Complex) belongs to the Muslim Waqf and Muslims have the right to offer prayers in it."

This appears to be an absolute misrepresentation of the judgement? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, when India argues with China, it talks about "customary" boundaries. Why can't the AIMPLB talk about customary rights? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

To Do

• Consult Nomani's sources.

• Consult Muraqqa-e-Banaras.
• Add a note about the "supposed" inscription.

• Consult Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh
• Consult Ganj-i-Arshadi TrangaBellam (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am reading through Nomani's books (very slowly) and surprisingly, a non-negligible portion of his writings make sense - see footnote j (sources incoming):

  Ganj-e-Aršadī — a collection of the sayings of Aršad Badr-al-Ḥaqq (1637-1701) of Banaras, compiled in 1721 — notes one "Shah Yasin", a saint, to have demolished the "big temple" (generally assumed to be the Vishweshwar), with help from local Muslim weavers, as a retribution against Hindus who had demolished a mosque.

  This, in turn, led to Hindus engaging in repetitive demolition of an under-construction mosque and spawned a violent confrontation between the two communities, leading to Muslim fatalities. Thus, Yasin would be spurred into destroying numerous temples despite opposition from the local administration who pointed to the lack of imperial consent.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I ran into similar fables in Ayodhya too, and even believed them for a while! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not think there is any reasonable evidence to doubt that it was anyone but Aurangzeb who had the temple demolished. Nomani's claims are nonsensical, when he attempts to sidestep the blame; at-least till what I read.

But there does exist roughly contemporaneous sources — produced under different contexts — which allow us to probe into the reasons that led to the demolition. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Print

These days, they are even publishing anonymous folks? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

"Mughal Temples" of Banaras

A lecture by Madhuri Desai TrangaBellam (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding book cited content deletion

Dear Kautilya3, Hello! I see that you have recently deleted the well sourced book cited addition from the page. Would to like to explain this for my better understanding? I guess my addition complies with the wikipedia guideline use scholarly works where possible. Just a plain fact was put out but you removed it. It would be kind of you to let me know what led you to this action. Thanks. Anand2202 (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:HISTRS for what kind of sources are acceptable for history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

My edit was in accordance with WP:Verify, WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. Which part did you not find in line with Wikipedia Guidelines? Anand2202 (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Anand2202, it looks you wer satisfied with TrangaBellam's answer, but in terms of policy, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:AGEMATTERS etc. for the use of sources, and WP:VNOTSUFF for what you need to do when other editors disagree with your additions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You are talking past K3. You cannot use a primary source, drafted by someone — who was not even a historian — about a hundred and fifty years ago, to write controversial things (about Aurangzeb). TrangaBellam (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Our article has,

M. A. Sherring,[q] writing in 1868, noted the Hindus to have claimed the plinth as well as the southern wall; the Muslims were allowed to exert control over the mosque but quite reluctantly, and permitted to only use the side entrance.[r] A peepal tree overhanging the gateway was also venerated, and Muslims were not allowed to "pluck a single leaf from it."

Endnote q goes,

An amateur archaeologist, Sherring took to establishing Benaras as a Buddhist city of yore that had fallen to Brahminism, before felling to Muslims. Such an assertion was thought to be a potent antidote to the fashioning of Benaras as an ageless site of pilgrimage for Hindus, which hindered Missionaries' efforts in converting natives; also, if Buddhism can fell to Hinduism after centuries of glory, so could Hinduism to Christianity. Sherring noted the presence of "Buddhist pillars" within the Gyanvapi Mosque, too.

Endnote r goes,

The Muslims had also built a gateway in the middle of the platform in front of the mosque, but were not allowed to use it.

Did you read these? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, there's the point! TrangaBellam, Since it was missing in the Pre-Mosque history section, I added it there without going further into the article. Thanks for letting me know. Anand2202 (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think so much can be added to enhance the quality of this article. With the current debate going around this particular place, the wikipedia page can certainly provide more relevant facts. Anand2202 (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Anand2202. What are some relevant facts that this article can (or should) provide but is currently not? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Prima facie, this article is not updated with the recent instances. This year, it witnessed a great amount of legal survey and historical scrutiny. However, the article currently ends with obsolete "indefinite stay" orders of court issued last year. The interesting part is, the article saw more than 100 edits this year but no word on the 2022 happenings. Strange, it appears. Anand2202 (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Even stranger is your inability to read talk-page discussions. Anyway, what did the "great amount of legal survey and historical scrutiny" say about the mosque complex? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

British Descriptions

• [4] (Also, p. 55)

• Interesting point about "cloisters."
• Front entrance is closed, as early as 1895.
• Well is covered.

• Mosque opposing Hindus blowing conches c. 1875.
• Bholanath Chunder's travelogue

• Remarks that had the sculptor got more knowledge of anatomy esp. of the neck, the Nandi would have been a fine specimen of Hindu architecture.
• Skips the mosque (and demolition) in totality.

• 1879 & c. 1879

• Some focus on the Mahadeva Shrine
• Well is not yet covered.

• 1905

• Ganesha Shrine - ? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Current Content

@All_Watchers: Any thoughts for improvement to the current content? K3, sentences which need to be clarified etc.? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, it looks completely transformed! Good job! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The recent edits including historical commentary by visitors during the pre-mosque period are very insightful and help paint a much fuller picture. Agree with Kautilya3, the current format reads much better and clearly has taken a fair amount of time and effort on your part. Good job indeed. Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving on this page could really help now

It appears that due to the recent increase in activity on this page, the length has been increased. I would suggest setting up of archiving here. Shall I commence it using the One Click tool? >>> Extorc.talk 21:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggested NPOV inclusion

The current write up is missing reference to Saqi Musta'd Khan's Masar-i-Alamgiri, which was completed in the year 1710 and chronicles events which occurred during the reign of Aurangzeb (1658-1707). This is an important source for understanding the history of that period. The importance of including this reference is to avoid the unintended take away that only non-Muslim voices have documented that the Vishweshwar temple was destroyed by Aurangzeb.

A (slightly awkwardly worded) change was made by Anand2202 to include this reference but was reverted by Kautilya3 and some discussion on this is here. I am bringing the discussion here on the suggestion of Kautilya3.

My proposal is to include

Saqi Mustad Khan, the chronicler of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb's reign, in his book Maasir-I-Alamgiri states that the destruction of the Temple of Vishwanath at Kashi was carried out on the Emperor's command during the month of September 1669.

in the pre-mosque history section.

How many times do you need to be told of the same thing? Attribution is totally unnecessary given the undisputed nature of the event. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time you have given this explanation. Your previous objection was to the wording which I updated based on your suggestion (Vishwanath temple vs temple of Visweshwar).

Attribution is necessary in this case because it helps give context to those who doubt that the event took place because they only see non-Muslim voices state that. The point is not undisputed as you yourself put it in your previous response to another topic we were discussing here as below:

In the meanwhile, I will drop another quote from recent scholarship that reinforces that most local Muslims reject the mainstream narratives and deny the act of demolition:

From dialogues with local Muslims who live and work around the KVT-GVM, it became clear to me that narratives about the origin of the mosque and its contested status circulate widely in this part of the city, and also among them. Indeed, the offended Hindus’ very arguments about the mosque are rejected by local Muslims as hurting their religious sensitivities. Sitting at the shop of two brothers on the main road close to the compound, I was repeatedly told that both local and foreign guides tell people a ‘wrong story (galat baat or kahaani)’, as Karim, one of the brothers, put it.

The ‘wrong story’ is evidently about the mosque and Karim referred to the widespread account of the Gyanvapi mosque being built on the debris of the previous Vishvanath temple. This account was completely rejected by several other Muslim interlocutors as well and the recurring reason for this rejection, which Karim expressed clearly to me, is that the destruction of places of worship is considered alien and sinful in Islam. He stressed that nobody would want to pray in a place originating from such a destruction and that such a place would not be a proper place of worship.
— Lazzaretti, Vera (2021-05-04). "Religious Offence Policed: Paradoxical Outcomes of Containment at the Centre of Banaras, and the 'Know-How' of Local Muslims". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 44 (3): 595–596. ISSN 0085-6401.

Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant that "attribution is totally unnecessary given the undisputed nature of the event [in scholarship]." We do not write our articles to influence real-life politics etc.; we are not beholden — ethically or otherwise — to convince anybody of anything. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We can't assume scholarly knowledge from readers. The ask here is for NPOV and in my view proper attribution is necessary. It isn't just what is written, but also who is cited. The current write-up completely excludes any reference to a very important source of historical documentation (the annals of that period of Mughal rule, no less) while including references to several modern non-Muslim sources, who in turn have used that source in their own scholarship. Webberbrad007 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We have endnotes for discussion of primary sources. I won't respond further. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have recently added the necessary reference in the end notes after this discussion was initiated. However, you have added a claim that Khan's history shouldn't be accepted blindly as per Audrey Trushke and others, without sourcing it. Could you add the source of this claim? Webberbrad007 (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have now added the source. However, your claim includes "others" while you have only referenced Audrey Trushke's book without providing relevant page numbers. In addition, what is the relevance of including this here? There might be other aspects of the book which might not be reliable, but on this specific topic, as you have already stated there is scholarly agreement. As such, the entire addition casting doubt on the source is WP:OFFTOPIC and should be removed. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Prominence given to Nomani's claims

Is there a reason Nomani's claims have been given such prominence in the History section and have been claimed to represent those of all Muslims ("Muslim memory")? I believe they have no currency with any noted academic or historian, though I might not have read all the scholarly sources that other editors have and if so, am willing to learn. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the article carefully and do not misrepresent content. The section containing Nomani's arguments is on "popular history"; the section on "history" is different.

I have categorically stated that, [T]here does not exist any acceptance of these revisionist narratives in scholarship; Desai deems Nomani's arguments as a strategic "rewriting of history" arising out of the Hindu-hegemonic nature of discourse in postcolonial Banaras. You do not really need imaginary fodder for rumination or learning. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge the difference between "popular history" and "history". I should have noticed it earlier. Now when I read my post again, it seems a bit sea-liony which wasn't the intention.

However the concern still remains. Should an encyclopedic article make a separate section for claims which are quite likely fictional in nature (based on available evidence)? I haven't seen any other Wikipedia article making a specific section for "memory" of Hindus or that of Muslims under "popular history". This, to me, doesn't seem warranted in an encyclopedic article.

Even if for some reason his claims have to be given space, should they be labelled as "Muslim memory"? How can we attribute his potentially fictional claims to be a memory of a vast population? Webberbrad007 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Should an encyclopedic article make a separate section for claims which are quite likely fictional in nature - Yes, as long as they have been subject to scrutiny by scholars in peer-reviewed media. We have standalone articles on conspiracy theories!

The paragraph runs,

Most Muslims of the city however [...] Varying theories are put forward instead [...] These viewpoints have been extensively developed by Maulana Abdus Salam Nomani [...]

If you believe that any of the above emphases is a misrepresentation of the inline-cited source(s), please invoke my attention. In the meanwhile, I will drop another quote from recent scholarship that reinforces that most local Muslims reject the mainstream narratives and deny the act of demolition:

From dialogues with local Muslims who live and work around the KVT-GVM, it became clear to me that narratives about the origin of the mosque and its contested status circulate widely in this part of the city, and also among them. Indeed, the offended Hindus’ very arguments about the mosque are rejected by local Muslims as hurting their religious sensitivities. Sitting at the shop of two brothers on the main road close to the compound, I was repeatedly told that both local and foreign guides tell people a ‘wrong story (galat baat or kahaani)’, as Karim, one of the brothers, put it.

The ‘wrong story’ is evidently about the mosque and Karim referred to the widespread account of the Gyanvapi mosque being built on the debris of the previous Vishvanath temple. This account was completely rejected by several other Muslim interlocutors as well and the recurring reason for this rejection, which Karim expressed clearly to me, is that the destruction of places of worship is considered alien and sinful in Islam. He stressed that nobody would want to pray in a place originating from such a destruction and that such a place would not be a proper place of worship.
— :::Lazzaretti, Vera (2021-05-04). "Religious Offence Policed: Paradoxical Outcomes of Containment at the Centre of Banaras, and the 'Know-How' of Local Muslims". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 44 (3): 595–596. ISSN 0085-6401.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they have been subject to scrutiny by scholars in peer-reviewed media. We have standalone articles on conspiracy theories! - I acknowledge the point about prominent conspiracy theories. However, should the section be retitled as "Evidence, claims and conspiracy theories" or something to that effect? Calling it "Memory" assigns an aspect of collective remembrance to these claims which, in the often poorly documented history of the sub-continent (and given its oral traditions), can ascribe to it more legitimacy than you might have intended. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Might I ask which part you disagree with?

Secondly, why do you wish to call those claims as "Muslim memory" when those claims, based on available scholarly evidence, appear made up and possibly a political way to avoid cognitive dissonance and suffers from "begging the question" fallacy ("This is not allowed based on our reading of the religion, and the rulers then couldn't have not followed this understanding of the religion. Thus, this can't be"). Webberbrad007 (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, I assume you either believe that you have answered this point (re calling it "Memory") or that this point isn't worth answering. Either way, I am afraid I disagree. As such, in the next couple of days I shall proceed with WP:BOLD update to the section to avoid WP:SYNTH suggestion that these claims are religious or community memories. Webberbrad007 (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The section is sourced to multiple scholars and you cannot cite BOLD to remove sourced content.

You can change "memory" to "claims" in the section header. Since no scholar has characterized either the Hindus' or Muslims' faith-centered claims as "conspiracy theories", you cannot use such a label. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to complete this topic before it is archived, I acknowledge your change from "memory" to "claim" here. Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

2021 filing

Beggars belief - I pity the judge who had to read this. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sfn

Across the next few days, I will be re-reading Desai (and a couple of other sources) to make our article more precise and accordingly, insert sfn citations. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I will be glad if any of the watchers can create a bibliography section containing all the sources cited. Fwiw, we do not need chapter-wise entries of Desai since I will use sfn. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Desai and Searle-Chatterjee are already there. Do you need any more? (Incidentally, Desai's year of publication is 2017, not 2018). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

When we are sfn-ing citations, shall not we convert all? Thanks for the year correction! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I generally don't. Only the books that are repeatedly used need to go into sfn so that we can refer to the requisite pages. Others can stay as they are. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I did, for maintaining uniformity. Time to divide the section into primary sources, secondary scholarship, news articles etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I do it, too. It helps in maintaining uniformity, so that all the citations can go under one section (call it "Citations") and the sources under another section (call it "References"). Otherwise, we will end up having both citations and complete references under the "Citations" section in a mixed way. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting sources

• Uma Bharati's comments at the House Floor when PoW bill was tabled.

• It is a matter of profound relief that the Mahasivaratri festival at Varanasi's famed and historic Viswanath temple, where the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had threatened to create a new tradition by performing Jalabhishek at the Shringar Gauri, passed off without any untoward incident. The brazen attempt by the VHP and its associates, the Bajrang Dal and the Shiv Sena, to raise the communal temperature was frustrated by an alert Uttar Pradesh administration which had risen to the occasion by deploying security forces in strength. For the same occasion last year, the VHP made a similar effort, calling it the launch of its struggle for the "liberation" of the Kashi temple. But that too was foiled equally firmly by the Mulayam Singh regime.
  — India: The fundamentalist challenge, Editorial, The Hindu, 20 February 1996

  TrangaBellam (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Will get into the machinations in independent India, once I complete re-reading Desai and finessing the relevant sections. Btw, Aishwarya Iyer of Scroll is publishing an excellent series of reports on the Gyanvapi esp. focusing on how the entire hullaballoo has been manufactured by VHP from behind the scenes. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Wink

According to historian André Wink, "Islamic iconoclasm and temple destruction" was on the rise in the Mughal period [..] It was during Aurangzeb's times that iconoclasm reached its peak for which there is "overwhelming evidence". All Mughal rulers including Aurangzeb demolished Hindu temples and icons [..]

This is not a page about Mughal Empire or Islamic Iconoclasm or Hindu Temples or Aurangzeb or even, Andre Wink.

We do not doubt that Aurangzeb had destructed the temple.

[..] in spite of their support for Hindu institutions at other places.

I take that as being supportive of the last line in the section. Thanks!

[..] which was not simply a political phenomenon. [..] André Wink challenges Richard Eaton's claims and argues that Mughal iconoclasm had always both political and religious motives and was far more widespread.

This belongs but in a trimmed state.  Done TrangaBellam (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: @Kautilya3: André Wink clearly mentions the term "Islamic iconoclasm" and associates it with temple destruction. For him, it is not simply a political phenomenon. Because temple destruction was also related with the Islamic theology of iconoclasm. For more information on Islamic iconoclasm, refer to his book "Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest 11th-13th centuries", published by Brill, 1997, p.313. André Wink talks about all Mughal rulers including Aurangzeb and cites the two most famous temples destroyed by Aurangzeb. The content should be restored.Stormbird (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

And? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wink doesn't say anything about the Vishweshwar temple, other than the fact that it was demolished. That is already said in the page. So what more is there to add?

Wink said he disagrees with Eaton about the religious motivations, in a footnote, but he doesn't really engage with the issue. So no more WP:WEIGHT can be attached to his view. If he really wants to contest Eaton, he needs to write a full-length article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Bhaideval

The only photograph found until now comes from the collection of Felix Brandt, Altotting (1920).
— http://ecs.com.np/features/bhaideval-not-what-it-seems-to-be

The (PD) photograph appears to be the one featured in their article. The same photo is featured in similar articles carried by Nepali media but always without attribution.

Can somebody trace the source of this photo? I am reasonably confident that somewhere in the internet, floats a high resolution scan.

A friend of mine, acquainted with Nepal Studies, says Brandt is this guy.

Additionally, is Niels Gutschow quoted from some publication or did he give byte to ECS Nepal? Former being the case, what is the publication?

Detailed watercolour of the woodwork of the first-floor struts, cornices, and pillars made by Henry Ambrose Oldfield in 1853 were discovered in the British Museum.
— https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/restoring-a-piece-of-nepals-history/

Another target. This is again, PD. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

p. 30 - 32. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bhaideval Inscription (and a Nepali translation) can be consulted here. (p. 197 - 201) TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

this mosque is not built by demolishing a temple. fascist books are referred to here. Zubyrp (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2022 (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. >>> Extorc.talk 07:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues

Nandi

When was the statue gifted by Jung Bahadur Rana? This is a very interesting choice of gift given the situation back in homeland. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nah - Rajendra Bikram Shah or his son. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Shiva Shrine

It appears that the small shrine of Shiva exists no more. It was dismantled under the Modi Regime's grand project of modernizing Kashi Vishwanath. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Vyas Bhavan seem to have met the same fate — Lazeratti has a decent essay on the modernization project and it's effects on Gyan Vapi. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Rajendra Tiwari, a mahant at the Vishwanath temple, whose own house had been demolished thanks to the city’s makeover, was one of the most outspoken critics of Vishwanath Corridor I happened to speak with. "Banaras had an old puranic identity, a historical identity, which the present government has completely destroyed,” he said. “They have converted our city from a spiritual centre into a commercial one."

"They have found a stone pole in the fountain. So what? Who will decide if this is Lord Vishwanath? Vishwanath is no ordinary God. He is the God of the Universe” he said, echoing the Hindu belief that the Kashi Jytorlingam represents the (nirguna) Shapeless Supreme Reality out of which appears the (saguna) form of Lord Shiva. "If you walk from Gowdolia Chowk to Dashashwamedh Ghat, you’ll see some 200 stones that look just like this,” he continued. “Will people now start saying that these are also Lord Vishwanath? These people are making a joke out of Vishwanath’s magnificence [..] And to all these people standing up for dharma today I want to ask, where were they when our old temples were being broken?"
— Kapila, Siddharth. "The Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Equation: A Parable for People, Power, Politics". The Wire.

Rani of Hyderabad

Who is the "Rani" of "Hyderabad"? That Hyderabad has not seen a Hindu ruler since inception, Sherring's statement is interesting. The Nizams apparently donated liberally to temples but I do not know of the finer details (if any).

Or is it the famed Rani Shankaramma?

Kautilya3, any ideas? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

If a Nizam had a Hindu wife, she might be referred to as "Rani". Even if they convert to Islam officially, they would also retain their Hindu identity and patronise Hindu temples etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Images

• What is the copyright status of these two photos - can we upload it to en-wiki or Commons? (cc:Johnbod) I am not satisfied with this.
  Shows the colonnade, Nandi, and the Mahadev shrine; will be a nice fit to the section on British Raj. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Those two are old enough to be PD. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Uploaded the latter.

The former is already available at a far-higher resolution but B&W color (LACMA's known issue) at Commons. Any way out? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Another PD photo that can serve as a good replacement, shall the BL one fail our copyright criterion. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Uploaded. Kautilya3, check the resolution! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Another older painting (c. 1864) but not uploadable is already at Commons. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• What is the source of this image? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Compare the image of the well (we have) with an old photo: a stone-screen for the priest to sit upon is the conspicuous addition. Can we have these two photos side by side? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Ah - the former is more recent but portrays the rear view. Uploaded. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Building

When I sort three of the above photos in a chronological order - 1 followed by 2 followed by 3 -, it is clear that a building, located just north of the Well-Nandi-Shrine line, was extensively refurbished. What is that? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Pavillion

An open pavilion like structure associated with a temple would be generally an Utsava Mantapa (pavilion of utsav), where celebratory functions may be held. They are meant to accommodate a large number of people, as opposed to the main temple which would be limited in accommodation. For example, you can imagine that on Shivaratri, many pilgrims would gather and sing bhajans all night. Why was it kept after a mosque came into being, I have no idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

What you understand to be the pavilion, is also the extended temple plinth. Which was super-sacred esp. in light of the demolition. Contemporary Persian sources record a lot of temple demolitions but also fierce Hindu responses to the extent of mosque demolitions and arsons; absent imperial firmans, it would not have been easy for local Muslims to manipulate with the spatial details. Further, the original well was quite large; it was more of a pond.

By mid-1800, not only there was the Kashi Vishwanath yards away but also a statue of Nandi and two shrines had been installed in the pavilion itself. And then there was Company rule. So, no scopes at all.Though I remain curious about Muslim responses to the installation of Nandi and the Mahadev shrine. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sacralising the ground seems to be a natural Hindu response when faced with a temple demolition. The same thing happened in Ayodhya too. A mythified history of the antecedents also gets constructed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Did not any of the scholars investigate the pavilion? I see a plaque on the right hand side corner wall. There must be some description of what it says. The architecture of the pavilion seems quite unrelated to that of the original temple. It was certainly a later addition, much later I would imagine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Nah but somebody will.

The history of the site from c. 1805 is exceptionally well documented - we even have minutes of opposition to Holkar's proposal to construct the colonnade etc. in UP Archives. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Map

Got hold of the survey-map, accepted by both parties in the 1936 litigation. Guess it is PD? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

A non-watermarked and high-resolution version of this. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So, if it is published in India (or unpublished), 60 years is the limit of copyright. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You can use {{PD-India}} in the permission box. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

On this. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Lower Court Judgement

I will appreciate if any of the watchers can provide a copy of the lower court's judgement in Din Mohammad v. Secretary of State? There appears (1, 2) to be some kind of pan-India project to digitize legacy court records but I am not acquainted with the means to access them. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 - any idea? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no expertise in court judgemnts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Annotating image

I will appreciate help at annotating a survey map of the area from c. 1700. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Fascinating

Grateful and Graceful The Times of India. 2 Aug 1911. pg. 4 TrangaBellam (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC) ProQuest 500414738 Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Leader, 7 Sept. 1922, p. 7. Readex: South Asian Newspapers TrangaBellam (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Leader, 11 Sept. 1922, p. 6 Readex: South Asian Newspapers. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Leader, 6 Aug. 1913, p. 6 Readex: South Asian Newspapers.

Leader, 4 Aug. 1922, p. 6 Readex: South Asian Newspapers. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh Gazetteer

The state gazetteer claims Makhdoom Shah Yasin to have died in 1663. This unsourced trivia appears to be wrong since Ganj-e-Arshadi cites the episode of demolition to a letter from Yasin, dated 1669. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

Banaras should be changed to Varanasi 103.159.107.132 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason provided for why the edit should be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done It is the common name as well as the official one - Varanasi. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

Rename to Gyanvapi Temple 2601:647:6780:A760:90DE:5F4:9A4C:9624 (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It is currently used as a mosque. The temple thing is clearly stated in the lead itself. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hindu

Please correct the Hindu religious or religion line in the paragraph because Hindu is not religion people from bharat were called as Hindu the religion you are talking about is sanatan dharam kindly make these changes thanks 79.153.94.205 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

ASI Survey Report

So, the ASI came across a partially-defaced inscription pertaining to the construction of the mosque in 1676-77. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't make propaganda No proof that Mosque build on demolished Hindu temple so must be removed this article

94.203.201.52 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See the sources in the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The temple had been built during Akbar's reign by Raja Man Singh, whose great-grandson, Jai Singh, many believed helped Shivaji flee from the Mughal court in 1666.” (Aurangzeb: Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial King (2017))Proof 79.153.94.205 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, that is an inaccurate narrative. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Date changes

@TrangaBellam there have been a bunch of changes to dates on the page, but edit summaries were insufficient to understand the basis for those changes (some of them were simply like "ah"). Can you explain those?

Also please write more clear edit summaries, I hadnt even realised there were changes until I realised some dates looked different from what I remembered and then checked revisions one by one. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I will be careful about the edit summaries. That said, all text — as it stands — is self-explanatory amd well-cited. TrangaBellam (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

To look

• Karnataka Grant
• Aparanatha

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)