Talk:William Finch (merchant)

Synth concern

If Finch is only referring to the ruins of a castle, on what basis is this article identifying the site he saw as unequivocally being Rama's birthplace? Is that really what Bakker is saying, that Rama was born in that ruin, and Finch documented this? Kautilya3, you've edited this page a little; thoughts? Based on general scholarly consensus about the region, it seems likely Finch saw structures reputed to be Rama's castle, but that can't have been the precise location of the Babri Masjid, as this article itself suggests. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In Finch's day, there was no mention of "birthplace" by name, but the ruined houses were where "the great god took flesh upon earth". That is another way of saying birthplace, but I have changed it to Ramkot area to avoid disputes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking, the assumptions should be avoided and it should be limited to what he wrote in his journal. The article itself says that that can't be a precise location of the Babri Masjid. Jenos450 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: That's certainly clearer, but I'm still concerned we're drawing a conclusion that isn't in the sources. Finch's observations may have become a part of the dispute, but I'm still not seeing how he can be said to have seen the site of the present-day dispute, which is a very small and specific site. Some rephrasing would be helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. A wonderful suggestion by Vanamonde93, but, it seems like Kautilya3 is doing ad hominem by questioning the work of the scholar. I recommend your suggestion to be proceeded. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you see this passage on page 135 of Kunal?

Since the existence of the temple was seen by William Finch (1610), De Leat (1631) and Thomas Herbert (1634) in the Ram Kot, the Rama temple existed at the Janma-sthana, at least, till 1634 A.D.

Or, are you just trying to be difficult? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If the temple was seen by Finch, why are you denying that there was no Janambhoomi there in the article itself? Also, tagging it as "houses" is ufair. You seem to question the primary source on his correct usage of castles. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to open a dispute. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

concern

Like Kautilya3 mentioned Finch not finding Babri masjid, it could be very possible that he did not come across the exact location. It is also very likely that he came across the debris in another location, hence assumptions disturb the reality of the situation and that is what we should avoid in Wikipedia. Mentioning that he found the exact location in such a big city like Ayodhya is baseless and the article should be limited to what he wrote in his journal. The article which Kautilya3 mentioned suggests the same.

My second concern is the sentence "he described the 'houses' as"

To Oude (Ajodhya) … a citie of ancient note, and seate of a Potan king, now much ruined; the castle built four hundred yeeres agoe. Heere are also the ruines of Ranichand(s) castle and houses, which the Indians acknowled(g)e for the great God, saying that he took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of the world... (next paragraph) Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold tried.

As you can see, he firmly talks about the castle and not the houses. He merely mentions the houses once, but rather in later paragraph, Finch mentions that the castle was made up of gold and the gold is yet to be plundered from it. Here is the entire thing he wrote. Hence, that should be changed to castle. Jenos450 (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "reality of the situation" is. I can only look for evidence. You should also note that the citations given are Layton-Thomas and Bakker. Not Finch's book, which is a WP:PRIMARY source.

We have some serious terminological confusion here between "fort" and "castle". A fort is generally a large structure that typically encloses an entire township. A castle, in modern English, is generally a single fortified building. But I can't be sure that that is universal or that it is how it was used in the 17th century. The Sanskrit terms durga and kota also have the same problem but I think durga is more like fort, whereas kota can be either.

Bakker treats Ramadurga and Ramkota interchangeably. He describes it as a fort and identifies it with the "castle built four hundred yeeres agoe" of Finch.

The second occurrence of "castle" in "castle and houses" is regarded as part of the complex. It is probably some ruined structure which happened to have high walls. The two occurrences of "castle" refer to different things, in my view as well as what I can tell from Bakker. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I agree with you but I strongly believe that "houses" should be changed with Castle as "Houses" imbalances the original discovery of castle and makes it looks like just another house.

I know 'Kota' and 'Durga' signify the same problem but Foster never mentioned Ramdurga, he always quote Ramkota, kota a sanskrit word translate to castle. The terminological confusion that we're facing here could be solved by looking at the mention of "Forts" in the 17th century documents and comparing it with the structure today. For example take, Niccolao Manucci, a 17th century Englishmen mentions Agra Fort as a Fort and it is a really huge structure today. Another instance could be Pendennis Castle, Finch was a British and this 16th century castle got its name back in 16th century. Thus, it could be said that it still signify the same to this day.

Another instance that proves it was not just another "houses" is the occurrence of gold in the second text, a very hard possibility is that the ruins must has been another wall of some house because only a huge structure will have so much gold that is yet to plundered. Then again, why shouldn't this information be included in the quotation?

Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold tried.

Kautilya3, about mentioning the Babri masjid in the location is confusing even the source you mentioned calls it a probability and nothing else. This would confuse the readers as well after they see the source. I believe the only detail that should be mentioned is what is written in the journal.

Also, please remove 'present day conflict' as the Ayodhya trail has came to a conclusion a month ago. Jenos450 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is to acknowledge you that I would be opening a dispute regarding the article. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC

The houses should be changed to "castle" for greater significance to the original context. Secondly, the assumptions should be avoided and it should be limited to what he wrote in his journal. The article itself says that it can't be a precise location of the Babri Masjid. Writing it regardless of its absence in the very source would confuse the readers. Lastly, the entire quotation about the 'castle' should be included and should not be cherry-picked. Jenos450 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The content is based on a reliable secondary source, Henry Bakker's Ayodhya. Interpreting PRIMARY sources amounts to WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)