Talk:Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind

Biased article

The language of the article particularly the section about Babri Masjid is full of partiality and ignores the felonious ways in which the mosque was built and the judgement of Supreme court of India which upheld it as birthplace of Lord Rama. I had suggested an edit but It was reverted repeatedly. Mohit Dokania (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This article talks about the role of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in the Babri masjid case since 1934. It is not a history article about the mosque itself. Nonetheless, "ignores the felonious ways in which the mosque was built" is entirely against WP:NPOV - which even if neutralised does not belong here but to Babri Masjid article. The section here does not need to get deep into the theories of how the mosque was built. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 05:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi The final judgment of the supreme court of India affirmed that the disputed land was the birthplace of Rama as per evidence provided and that the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, noting that "it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam." Whether it's an history article or not doesn't matter. The POV of the article is biased and should be neutralised for a better narrative. Please tell me which clause of my edit send incorrect instead of reverting the whole edit. Mohit Dokania (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, in this article we are talking about the role of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in this case - we are not talking about what Supreme court ruled - they did infact also rule that the demolition of the mosque was illegal and in violation of law but we aren't mentioning it here simply because it doesn't relate here. Things like that belong to articles about those specific subjects. Your edit might find a place in Babri Masjid article (only after it follows WP:NPOV as suggested by an admin below) - it does at no cost belong to an article that talks about an organisation and its role: so simply WP:UNDUE. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 08:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aafi Again, You should point out which part of my edit, you are having objection with rather than trying to revert the whole edit for protecting a biased narrative. Adding more context to an article for a clear understanding of an incident is with the spirit of Wikipedia. Mohit Dokania (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is already mentioned above that why your edit is irrelevant in this article in its entirety. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 03:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Protected

Per a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the article for two weeks. Ask me or any other admin to remove the protection if consensus is reached. Some observations: When disagreements occur, discussions must follow on article talk. Do not revert without achieving WP:CONSENSUS. It is not acceptable to call something "felonious" in WP:WIKIVOICE. That is just political speak with no meaning. It might be given as an WP:ATTRIBUTEd opinion but it would be more encyclopedic to focus on the alleged felony and its basis in law or tradition or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq The final judgment of Supreme court of India affirmed that the disputed land was the birthplace of Rama as per evidence provided and that the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, noting that "it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam." My edit was reverted first, So it wasn't correct to revert it without consensus, right? Mohit Dokania (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You have had an account since August 2018 but have only made 74 edits. A lot of editing is needed in order to get a feeling for how Wikipedia works. The first point is that regardless of whether your edits were correct, you were edit warring and should have been blocked. Instead, I protected the article so a discussion on the merits of the proposed change could occur. You seem to be saying that a "final judgment of Supreme court of India" justifies diff. I have no idea about the content of this topic and won't be expressing an opinion about what should happen. However, I have already pointed out that "feloniously built upon rama's birthplace" will not be acceptable in any article. If someone has an opinion that an action was a felony, it might be WP:DUE to mention that a certain group believe a certain action broke a particular law. Saying something was felonious is just a political slogan. At Wikipedia, an editor wanting a change has to justify the change (WP:ONUS). It is not the responsibility of those reverting a change to give more than brief reason. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq It should be known that the mosque was built after demolishing the birthplace temple of lord rama by seer force to just humiliate the hindus. It's not an opinion but a historical fact with court judgement supportung it. This article tries to change the narrative to conceal and victimise this felonious act. Mohit Dokania (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has hundreds of articles where issues are contested. Relying on what editors know to be true would not be a feasible way to resolve disagreements (see WP:NOR). Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2024

Trappist the monk (talk · contribs), you accidentally "fixed" a file name in your most recent edit, could you please undo that? - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 05:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A more helpful request would have been to identify which part of the edit needed fixing. I have replaced the curly quotes in File:Manmohan Singh, releasing a collection of Parliamentary speeches of Maulana Syed Asad Madani, at the Fida-e-Millat Seminar on “Hazarat Maulana Syed Asad Madani Life and Contribution”, in New Delhi on April 23, 2007.jpg so the image now displays. Possibly the file should be renamed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and @Sumanuil: I have renamed this file. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 07:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think I needed to specify, as there was only one edit and one altered file name in that edit. Also, I got kind of annoyed at not being able to do it myself. But next time I will specify. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I have restored Trappist's edit with straight quotes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)