Talk:Ayodhya dispute/Archive 1

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

Older messages

Hi Baka, I was just trying to improve the quality of the whole page than anything else. I realize somehow you are insistent on having the political fallout section. Well I am not particularly happy with it because it says some feel with out naming a source. Please provide a source or take that sentence back. I also feel that the Godhra incident is not relavent in a Ayodhya debate. Please give a justification for that here. Just because karsevaks were massacared doesnt mean that it needs a mention here. If that has to stay then the pre demolition shooting of karsevaks should also be included. Bye --Khammam 05:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have given enough time for a response. As there was no response I am going ahead and removing the Godhra incident from this article--Khammam 05:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Hindu view, the ancient temple could have been destroyed on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur. This view is challenged by many Muslims and 'Marxist'.[4]

This is so obviously written by someone with a very definite bias..."marxist", lol. I'm editing this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.126.144 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline article

I have merged the timeline article into this. It wasn't sourced at all and there's no reason for the split (other than the ability to make different partisan versions). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: if sources aren't provided (and they really should be better than Brittanica), I will wipe out the entire thing and make everyone start over. If people are actually interested in writing something useful, we need sources for legitimacy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

the shouting at timeline

The meassage in bold at the timeline looks inapproriate. I think it must be removed.--EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be issues that cause this article to require major revision. In many cases the issues do not lie with the accuracy of the given facts, but their presentation, and the lack of facts cited to support views other than that presented in the article. The cited facts themselves seem to show a selection bias which puts the impartiality and accuracy of the article in question. The article can be made more satisfactory if the presentation is made more objective and without the apparent emotional bias.

Some of the points needing discussion and revision are:

1. Mir Baqi / Mir Banki

Within Wikipedia the name is given as Mir Baqi in the articles [[Mir_Baqi|Mir Baqi], Babri Mosque, Ram Janmabhoomi and Babur. The spelling Mir Banki used in the article Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya, Vinay Katiyar, Bankipore and the present article. In view of the fact that both spellings seem to be prevalent, the existence of both should be mentioned. A link should be provided to the Mir Baqi article.

2. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The phrase "the disputed structure sharing walls with Sita and Hanuman Mandir got destroyed in 1992" needs revision. The use of the phrase "got destroyed" implies accidental destruction, not deliberate demolition as in the present case.

In contrast, the next sentence states "The original Hindu temple was demolished or dramatically modified on the orders of the Mughal Emperor Babur ..." which has a totally different tone and bears the implication of deliberate action.

3. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "A movement was launched in 1984 by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP party) to reclaim the site for Hindus who want to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala), at this spot. Many Muslim organizations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the disputed structure and carried out the 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya along with strong opposition to building of the proposed new temple even threatening the Head of current Ram Temple (at same spot since 1992)" Seem to show different attitudes towards the actions of Hindus and Muslims, and needs to be re-written. The absence of supporting citations needs to be corrected.

4. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "The latest archeological evidence comes from examination of the site after the destruction of the Babri Mosque. The Archaeological Survey of India under Braj Basi Lal, although initially published as finding no significant structures as these reports were based on inconclusive facts and were mere a media leak, subsequently put forward evidence of a pre-existing temple predating the mosque by hundreds of years as its final report." need to be supported by suitable citations, or else needs to be removed as it makes a very serious accusation regarding a lack of impartiality on the part of the Archaeological Survey Of India.

5. Contradictory View

This entire section and specially its opening paragraph seem designed to cast doubt on the validity of the Contradictory View. The section heading itself seems to imply less respect for these opinions.

In order to meet the usual standards of a learned article, the apparent bias needs to be removed and the article re-written to stand on the merits of fact and not opinion.

--Fair1 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction -- more NPOV wording on the existence of Rama as a historical person

I changed the introduction and the religious issues sections to reflect the fact that although Rama is revered by Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu, his existence as a historical person, and his birthplace if indeed he was a historical person, are not established. The problem exists to some degree with many traditional religious figures: such figures occupy a continuum from ones for whom there is little evidence of their historical existence (e.g. Zeus, Adam) to those whose historical existence is scarcely disputed (e.g. the Mormon Joseph Smith), though some stories about what they did are believed only by their devout followers.CharlesHBennett (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring

I have done some restructuring for style, but I'm afraid lot of the nuetrality issues are still there. SPat talk 10:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I did some of this too, mostly standardizing what we're calling the mosque, and removing some POV language.TN | ! 09:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Need For Objectivity

I would like to apologize for making an error and including the post below as an edit to a previous posting. It should have been under a new section. This second post is to make this plain.

There appear to be issues that cause the article to require major revision. In many cases my dispute is not with facts, but their presentation. I believe that the article can be made more satisfactory if the presentation is made in a more objective and without the apparent emotional bias.

Some of the points needing discussion and revision are:

  1. Mir Baqi / Mir Banki

Within Wikipedia the name is given as Mir Baqi in the articles [[Mir_Baqi|Mir Baqi], Babri Mosque, Ram Janmabhoomiand Babur. The spelling Mir Banki used in the article Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya, Vinay Katiyar, Bankiporeand the present article. In view of the fact that both spellings seem to be prevalent, the existence of both should be mentioned. A link should be provided to the Mir Baqiarticle.

 Done Created redirect from Mir Banki to Mir Baqi SPat talk
  1. History Section:

The phrase "the disputed structure sharing walls with Sita and Hanuman Mandir got destroyed in 1992" needs revision. The use of the phrase "got destroyed" usually implies accidental destruction, not deliberate demolition as in the present case.

In contrast, the next sentence states "The original Hindu temple was demolished or dramatically modified on the orders of the Mughal Emperor Babur ..." which has a totally different tone and the implication of deliberate action.

 Done Content has been removed SPat talk
  1. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "A movement was launched in 1984 by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP party) to reclaim the site for Hindus who want to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala), at this spot. Many Muslim organizations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the disputed structure and carried out the 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya along with strong opposition to building of the proposed new temple even threatening the Head of current Ram Temple (at same spot since 1992)" Seem to show different attitudes towards the actions of the Hindus and Muslims, and needs to be re-written.

 Done Re-worded the part about Muslims reaction. SPat talk

4. History of Ram Janmabhoomi

The sentences "The latest archeological evidence comes from examination of the site after the destruction of the Babri Mosque. The Archaeological Survey of India under Braj Basi Lal, although initially published as finding no significant structures as these reports were based on inconclusive facts and were mere a media leak, subsequently put forward evidence of a pre-existing temple predating the mosque by hundreds of years as its final report." need to be supported by suitable citations, or else needs to be removed as it makes a very serious accusation regarding a lack of impartiality on the part of the Archaeological Survey Of India.

 Done Content has been removed SPat talk

5. Contradictory View

This entire section and specially its opening paragraph seem designed to cast doubt on the validity of the Contradictory View. The section heading itself seems to imply less respect for these opinions.

In order to meet the usual standards of a learned article, the apparent bias needs to be removed and the article re-written to stand on the merits of fact and not opinion.

 Done Section removed and re-added as Excavations under Post independance SPat talk

--Fair1 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I think most of these concerns have been addressed, and hence I'm removing the NPOV template (hopefully just in time for the verdict!) SPat talk 10:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes quotation

Ok, I hope everyone reads this because I want to make this clear: no more edit warring on the page. User:Backtalking khartoumi tried to add this section just before he was blocked. In my opinion, Pipes' blog is his personal opinion and is not at all relevant, giving undue weight to his view. If someone could show that others have compared it in similar ways, it might be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Pipes quote is completely unnecessary, representing one man's view that has hardly any academic credibility, not to mention what he describes can hardly be considered an exclusively Muslim practice (Christians have been doing the same thing for instance.) I won't delete it for now but I fail to see what quoting Daniel Pipes does besides make this article lose all credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.62.167 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Added that the court has by a majority verdict agreed that a Hindu temple was demolished in order to build the mosque. Based on the ASI report and the literary evidences submitted before the court —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.194.164 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I know nothing about this topic except that it was featured on the front page, and that quote definitely stands out far more than a random quote from some random blogger would seem to deserve to do. We either need to demonstrate that Pipes's opinion on the topic is more-than-usually relevant, trim that bit way back, add some balancing quotes from other (perhaps more reliable) sources, or maybe a little of all the above. Xtifr tälk 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation... not a suggestion

It seems that the political scene and progress in India has come to a very unstable point. In such a situation its better to leave the strings of a case as sensitive as the Ayodhya one undisturbed. Or else it may lead to a great disturbance in many other areas which can be even more uncontrollable. Drop the decision of the case at wherever it is now. In future if there is any progress or adress to the issue it can be dealt later on with a better experience and composure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgv.victory (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an OBSERVATION... not a suggestion

The political scene in India seems to be in a very unstable state and the progress beyond saturation point. In such a situation it would be wise to leave the strings of a case as sensitive as the Ayodhya one undisturbed, or else it can lead to an uncontrollable disturbance in many other areas. Better drop the case wherever it stands. In future if there is any progress or issues to be adressed, it can be dealt with much more experience and compusure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgv.victory (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ram universal to Hindus?? rubbish

Ram is no universally revered hindu deity. he's basically worshipped in north india as a hero, and is not viewed with great respect elsewhere in the country. north indians need to get that into their head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.209.28 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, are you kidding me, Sree Ram is praised and loved in every part of India, even in the south. Get a hold of yourself. 117.204.86.11 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

IP: 117.96.209.28 stop writing rubbish. Lord Ram is revered all over India.188.48.90.13 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ram is not revered in South India. It is Krishna. And both are incarnations of Vishnu. Krishna Jayanthi is perfomed on a larger scale than Ram Navami in South India. Go to Udupi during Krishna Jayanthi to know what I am trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.149.7 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are all the citations?

This article seems to be very weak, especially in the history section. Most references are missing, and the history section reads as if it was written by someone with an agenda. As a disclaimer, I am neither Hindu or Muslim but just an atheist European. My problem is that I cannot trust this article, and the way it is written makes me take it with a huge grain of salt. Should this article be marked in some way, warning the unsuspecting readers that trust everything that is written on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.224.176 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO, most of the important points have inline citations. Wherever you have specific concerns, you can tag them using the citation needed template. SPat talk 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Ayodhya debate → Ayodhya dispute — Debate seems euphemistic. The issue is, at heart, a dispute over who has rights over the area occupied by the mosque/temple. RegentsPark (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes. I missed that. Both GHits and GNews show that Ayodhya dispute IS the most common name. And, of course, its a dispute. Shovon (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a dispute GBooks GNews. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, as per Redtigerxyz. Now that I think about it, "debate" is a weird word to describe this. SPat talk 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly debate is not the correct word but according to Indian Judiciary and government it is a "Title Dispute". So it should either be "Ayodhya Title Dispute" or if this is not possible at least the search for this title should redirect to "Ayodhya dispute" page.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Dispute is a more accurate and common term.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ayodhya dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ayodhya dispute/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

However, thousands of Hindu temples had been destroyed by Islamic invaders for both political and religious reasons. The 2007 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica notes that there is no temple structure in the ancient and holy Hindu places of Varanasi and Mathura which dates prior to the 17th century.

The Hindu Nationalist movement has been pressing for reclaiming three of its most holy sites which had been suffered sacrilege at the hands of Islam - at Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi. L K Advani, the leader of the BJP in his memoirs argues "If Muslims are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians are entitled to a Christian atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hundus to expect a Hindu atmosphere in Ayodhya.

The following text has been added to me

Last edited at 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 08:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ayodhya dispute. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ayodhya dispute. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ayodhya firing incident

I came to this article because I was looking at Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from May 2017 and wondered at the wording of the title, which strikes me as poor diction. I note that Google News did not have a single newspaper story that used "Ayodhya firing incident" as a name for the events. I searched for "Ayodhya" to find whether there was some reason why the article title was so curiously worded. That search brought me here.

To an outside observer the 2017 incident in which police fired on certain volunteers seems relevant to this article. Why is it not incorporated or even referenced? DCDuring (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Google News does not do a good job of indexing Indian newspapers. There were specialised search engines we used to use, but all of them seem to have broken down. But a plain web search does bring up plenty of recent news articles. The old articles are probably gone from the web.
As to its coverage in this article see the end of the first paragraph of #Demolition of the Babri Mosque. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the search link. My Wiktionary habits take me to Google News not general search. In the US the more-restrained press might call such a thing a shooting incident. I have added a link to Ayodhya firing incident. in the timeline, paralleling a link to another violent incident, the Godhra train burning. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Religious background

WikiWizard42, can you explain the point of this edit? Also, why you removed content regarding Rama? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, the previous version of the section made claims about the mosque at the site that were unverified. With the references, I wanted to underscore the known religious background and provide a more holistic narrative (eg. X is a claim, Y is a dissenting opinion to X). About Rama, re-reading my edit, I agree it needs more information about him and I'll add it back in, good catch! -- WikiWizard42 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC) 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, apparently, you have retained a lot of the dubious junk added by the IP, which I had reverted. There are citations added to Layton & Thomas without page numbers, and some book published by Fordham University Press, which I never heard of. This book talks about a certain "Mir Baqi Isfahani, a Shia general". God knows where this came from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a fragment of what you or the IP added under religious background, while deleting the Garuda Purana,

An Austrian Jesuit priest, Joseph Tieffenthaler, was the first to suggest that the Babri Masjid ("Mahometan temple") was built after "got demolished the fortress called Ramcot", in the 1700s. This is around 200 years after the mosque was constructed assuming its construction during Babur's reign. He describes the columns of the mosque as reusing those of the previous structure, "debris of these columns brought from Lanka by Hanumann, the king of monkeys".[1] In 1810, Scottish physician Francis Buchanan recorded that the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, the great-great-great grandson of Babur, had destroyed a Ram temple and built a mosque atop it.[2] British administrative records show that a Hindu-Muslim dispute over the land, with the Hindus claiming that the mosque had been built on the birthplace of Hindu god Rama, started in 1853. The resolution of the dispute was with Muslims praying in the inner courtyard and Hindus in the outer courtyard (subsequently called the Ram Chabutra), separated by a railing.[3]

References

  1. ^ Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. (2003-09-02). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. ISBN 9781134604982.
  2. ^ Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. (2003-09-02). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. ISBN 9781134604982.
  3. ^ Chatterji, Roma (2015). Wording the World: Veena Das and Scenes of Inheritance. Fordham University Press. ISBN 9780823261857.
  • The source said Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished..., of which "Emperor Aurangzeb" was deleted, leaving a fragment that doesn't even make sense. Why?
  • "This is 200 years after the mosque was constructed"? Where does the source say that?
  • You have added Lanka and Hanuman. That is not important part, but let us leave that aside. But the source said "this was the house where Beschan was born". Why was that omitted?
  • The source doesn't describe Francis Buchanan as a "Scottish physician". That is OR. And, Buchanan most certainly did not say that Aurangzeb destroyed a temple. He always maintained that Babur did. That is in fact where the Babur story started. If anything, this should go in the Babri Masjid section, not here.
  • Then there is a narrative about British administrative records. But, didn't Tieffenthaler himself say that Hindus were worshipping to a vedi, outside the mosque?

On the whole, this is a very poor quality edit, going right up at the front of the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have now partially reverted this edit. I have put back the original order of "Ram Janmabhoomi" and "Babri Masjid". The above passage is commented out, pending resolution. I have also commented out Sushil Srivastava and R. Nath, sourced to Koenraad Elst, a dubious source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sushil Srivastava

Transcluded from Talk:Babri Masjid

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the light of the revelations that Sushil Srivastava has made in the Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Verdict - P.W. 15, Sushil Srivastava, I don't think his assessments belong in this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree, but we would need a better source for that information before we take his assessment out of the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Already done [1]. I don't know of anybody else that claimed that the inscription was a forgery. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline 1528

Freelance intellectual, if you want to fiddle with the wording like this, it needs a proper discussion. Note these statements:

  • In this interval a mosque was raised by order of Babur on the site of the Janmabhumi temple.[1]
  • The columns of the Janmabhumi temple that were used in the construction of the mosque have been described above.[2]
  • Today the Janmasthana is occupied by a mosque which bears inscriptions stating that in AD. 1528 the Mogul Prince Babur had ordered its construction as a replacement for a Hindu temple which formerly stood on the site.[3]
  • This small temple was replaced by a mosque, the Babri Masjid, in AD 1528, during the reign of the first Moghul emperor, Babur, a deed which was to have far-reaching consequences.[4]

So, the temple is very much talked about. The word he used was "replaced", which we can use as well.

And, what do you want to do about Tieffenthaler's testimony that a temple there was "demolished"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bakker, Ayodhya, Part I 1984, pp. 133–134.
  2. ^ Bakker, Ayodhya, Part I 1984, p. 134.
  3. ^ Bakker, The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage 1982, p. 113.
  4. ^ Bakker, Ayodhya: A Hindu Jerusalem 1991, p. 91.
The article lead very clearly states that it is disputed whether or not a temple was demolished in order to build the mosque. This seems reasonable, to maintain WP:NPOV. I do not want to pass judgement on this controversial issue. I edited the timeline because it seemed appropriate to have the same neutral point of view as in the article lead. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In fact, the article also makes it clear (in section 2.3 "Mughal period") that it is disputed whether the mosque was built in 1528 or some time later. This should also be reflected in the timeline. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, clearly Babur didn't build the mosque. But somebody put up an inscription saying it was. We can't do anything about that.
I have added William Finch's testimony, which contradicts the alleged construction by Babur. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Updating the articles related to Ayodhya dispute

The Allahabad high court order is in the link. The order discusses all the issues/question related to the site. The supreme court hearing is ongoing. Is there any need to update articles? When the SC order is passed, large number people would be reading the article. So we better keep it updated, neutral and well cited. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for remind us Nizil. I will give it a read and see where we need to improve. The modern history (colonial period) isn't great. The legal history is pretty much non-existent.
If somebody can get a licensable version of Jai Singh's map, that would enhance the article by miles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps The Tribune has shown us a more authentic image of the map. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been meaning to work on this page for a while; I did some work on some of the sub-pages; but I simply haven't had the time. I will get around to it. It might be better to wait until the Indian Supreme Court actually rules on this, and we have some substantive sources about the ruling; but it's also quite possible they'll just kick the can down the road. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, You mean the CJI will retire without a judgement? I must say the whole thing has been very anti-climactic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Well one way or another, they've avoided a conclusive ruling about this for a long time...Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, Kautilya3: Whether judgement is delivered or not, the article will be read by thousands. So I think it is right time to update the articles. I think it will be in the top articles if the judgement is delivered or possibly in ITN. So keeping them ready is essential.-Nizil (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions

The sections are not in chronological order. Post-independence section and Beginning of the dispute/Babji Masjid sections are not in chronology.-Nizil (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Gist of findings

The High Court's Gist of findings in relation to title dispute is noteworthy. It can be added in various sections. (page 280-282 of pdf) -Nizil (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC) #The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.

  1. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
  2. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
  3. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.
  4. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
  5. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
  6. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
  7. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
  8. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
  9. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
  10. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
  11. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
  12. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.
  • Other interesting read from page 242: Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that firstly no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque and secondly until the mosque was constructed during the period of Babar, the premises in dispute was neither treated nor believed to be the birth-place nothing but birth-place and the whole birth-place of Lord Ram. It is inconceivable that Babar (or Aurangzeb) should have first made or got made thorough research to ascertain the exact birth-place of Lord Ram, which was not known to anyone for centuries and then got constructed the mosque on the said site. The only thing which can be guessed, and it will be quite an informed guess taking the place of finding in a matter, which is centuries old, is that a very large area was considered to be birth-place of Lord Ram by general Hindus in the sense that they treated that somewhere in that large area Lord Ram was born however, they were unable to identify and ascertain the exact place of birth, and that in that large area there were ruins of several temples and at a random small spot in that large area Babar got constructed the mosque in question. Since after construction of the mosque Hindus started treating/believing the site thereof as the exact birth place of Lord Ram. It has come in the oral evidence of several Hindus and some Muslims that Hindus believed that the most precise place of birth of Lord Ram was the place beneath the Central dome of the Mosque. Accordingly, it is held that for some time before 1949 Hindus started to believe as such.
Nizil Shah, what document are you quoting from? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3,Allahabad high court pdf.-Nizil (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
That is Justice SU Khan's judgement. Do we know if it was the consensus judgement? How many judgements were there? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is an Outlook article from that time that summarises the three judges' viewpoints, from their 'Gists' alone:
God help any one that tries to summarise the thousands of pages of the judgements that have been written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The judgments of three judges differ in details. How the judgement is consolidated in one judgement deciding on the matter?-Nizil (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
EPW is good criticism of the verdict. (EPW is believed as left leaning publication IMO.)-Nizil (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I know where to find them. But I don't have a way of covering them or summarising them. What we need is honest-to-goodness reporting. Where can we find it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Judgement(s)

It turns out that the things are more messy than I imagined them to be. There were either 2 judgements or 3 judgements depending on how you count them.

  • 2 judgements - The majority judgement written by Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal, deciding what we know fairly well: that the site is to be divided three-way. But the two judges disagreed on the historical matters, according to Irfan Habib.[1]
The minority judgement was written Justice Sharma. He wanted to exclude Muslims altogether.[1] We couldn't spot it easily because he gave separate judgements for individual cases, instead of a "consolidated judgement".
  • 3 judgements - Unfortunately Irfan Habib doesn't explain what the differences were between Khan and Agarwal. (There is no mention of Khan after the first paragraph.) But we can see that Khan's point 1 says that the mosque was constructed under the orders of Babur. Agarwal's point 2 says that it was not proved that it was built during Babur's reign. That seems to be a disagreement. However, Kunal, Ayodhya Revisited (2016, pp. 641–642) quotes from Khan's judgement

"However, the authenticity of these three inscriptions/copies highly doubtful.... The manner in which Epigraphia Indica 1964 and 1965 and the book claim to have obtained the copies of the originals is such that not much reliance can be placed thereupon.

So, Kunal says that both the judges agreed on this point. (Khan is however appealing to faith, borrowing the Hindus' trick. At least from the 18th century, people started believing that it was built by Babur and "nobody has argued otherwise".) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
To pinpoint the difference further: Khan said that Hindus started believing it to be the birthplace after the mosque was constructed. Agarwal said that it was believed so before it was constructed. That is as far as the "majority" goes. Sharma said that it had always been the birthplace (not appealing to any "beliefs"). "Three way divide" is exactly what it was. I have no idea how BBC News is able to figure out what "The judgement" supposedly said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b Historians and the Judgement of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the Ramjanma-bhumi-Babri Masjid Case by Aligarh Historians Society, i.e., Irfan Habib.
It is very hard to write. Now 5 SC judges will deliver judgements. Will they deliver in the same way? Some legal expertise would be helpful. Nizil (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Normally, one expects one majority judgement and perhaps one minority judgement. But there is apparently a whole zoo of judgements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SC Judgement

@Kautilya3: Have a look. -Nizil (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nizil Shah. I don't see any major faux pas, and things seem to be calm. We can write about at leisure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Nirmohi Akhara

The court has said in its verdict in the politically-sensitive case of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya that the Nirmohi Akhara is not a shebait or devotee of the deity Ram Lalla. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the Akhara's suit was barred by limitation. 8nonym0us999 (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wider dispute

Hello @Vanamonde93: Recently you reverted an edit by another editor stating: "The legal dispute is over, but no evidence has been supplied that the wider conflict has been resolved." Could you please elaborate on what do you mean by "wider conflict"? Regards Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: This article is about the socio-political dispute, which has been in existence for centuries, not the legal case, which began in the 1990s and ended a short while ago. Saying that the socio-political dispute is over is an exceptional claim that needs exceptional sources. Sources about the legal case don't count, since the article isn't about that case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Would it be correct to term: "political, historical, and socio-religious debate in India" as described in the opening of the lead to " socio-political dispute" as you refer to it? debate=dispute? Weren't socio-political aspects embedded in the legal dispute? Or they were not addressed. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 16:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Santoshdts: "debate" vs "dispute" is an issue of semantics that I'm not particularly interested in; feel free to propose a change if you think it important. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:I consider (based on the arguments and judgement of the case) the socio-political aspects were embedded in the legal debate, which were resolved. Hence, Iam in support of the earlier edit you reverted. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As you are aware, what you consider isn't relevant. Please find reliable sources stating that the entire debate, rather than just the legal dispute, is resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: let's start with this one : this does support, socio-political aspects were part of legal csse? And could you please point me to some source that supports your argument. btw, Iam sure you consider the legal dispute settled. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 17:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you're implying with your last question, but yes, given the absence of further legal recourse the legal case is over. The source you are providing isn't worth much; it's an Op-Ed, when really we need scholarly sources. Moreoever, it's not just a single source; you would need to show that this is the consensus among reliable sources published since the judgement. I don't need to provide sources here; you're the one looking to change longstanding text, and so you need to substantiate your change. Please read WP:BURDEN. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Fair enough. Meanwhile, as legal dispute was an aspect since 188x, we can insert "legal" in the opening and say ~ The legal dispute was resolved but the socio-political debate remains. What is your opinion on this? Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the legal case is given sufficient weight in the second and third paragraphs of the lead; indeed, the entire lead focuses rather too much on the legal case, and too little on the history and archaeology of the site. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That brings us back to source supporting "was" a socio-political debate. Please have a look at this by Romila Thapar where on verdict, she says: "The problem was entangled in contemporary politics involving religious identities but also claimed to be based on historical evidence. This latter aspect has been invoked but subsequently set aside in the judgment." (emphasis mine). Iam sure, this can be considered as a scholarly source. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 18:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the trouble with semantic arguments; subtleties of the text are prone to misinterpretation. It's fairly obvious in this case that a) the "problem" she is referring to was the case before the court, and b) that she is using the past tense to refer to the entanglement, not to the case. You need to demonstrate that reliable sources consider the entire dispute resolved, not just single sources using the past tense in a very specific context. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: No. She is clearly stating, The case was entangled with "contemporary politics", "religious identities" and "historical evidence" which was set aside by the court while announcing the verdict. Now as you have confirmed, that there exists no further legal remedy. The case stands settled, in both legal and socio-political aspects as it was entangled in the legal case itself. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
"The case" refers to the legal case, and "was entangled" means "it is no longer entangled". If you are unable to understand this you ought not to be editing this topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, "it is no more entangled" and what was entangled in "the case"? socio-political debates. Which are "no more entangled". Hence, "was a socio-political,.....debate" in the lead and not "is a socio-political....debate" I thought you would get this easily. And Iam not aware of any topic ban on my interactions on this topic. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There's no topic ban; there is a requirement that editors be competent. Your inability to understand a source that you posted is an indication of a lack of competence or a wilful misunderstanding. @RegentsPark: would you take a look at this? I'm not getting through. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Santoshdts, I have added the ARBIPA discretionary sanction notice to the talk page, which means it is now in effect. Which also means that one's margin of error would be deemed more stringent. El_C 20:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Was there a riot on 6 December 1992

@Dr2Rao: You have three times removed from the second paragraph of lead that the political rally on 6 December 1992 became a riot.

  1. 19:58-20:03, 25 August 2020‎
  2. 20:13-20:18, 25 August 2020‎
  3. 07:26-07:29, 26 August 2020

Why did you do this? Is it your contention that there was no riot?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, there were no riotsclashes on 6 December 1992 but the mosque was demolished by extremists on that day. Riots started the next day all over the Indian subcontinent after TV/newspaper reports. Many non-Muslims were killed in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and other muslim majority areas and a retaliation happened in Mumbai. However, I could only find the sources that I cited in the article. Please add what you feel is right, using the sources I cited. Thanks.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The demolition itself is referred to as a "riot". It was certainly not kar seva.
I wonder if you ever bothered to look at the source that had been cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree and want to mention all the riots (all over the Indian subcontinent). Is it a mistake? I have cited references for the same (copied from another Wikipedia article).—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is a mistake. It is detracting from the main narrative. The post-demolition riots are not the "Ayodhya dispute". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say:
  • Citation [6] is "Ayodhya dispute: The complex legal history of India's holy site". BBC News. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019. This says "At the centre of the row is a 16th-Century mosque that was demolished by Hindu mobs in 1992".
  • Citation [62] is "Babri Masjid demolition was planned 10 months in advance". New Indian Express. 31 January 2005. Archived from the original on 17 January 2008. This says "RSS, BJP and VHP have been maintaining that the demolition was a result of impromptu action by some angry kar sevaks and that the top leadership had tried to stop them." It also says "a book authored by a former top Intelligence Bureau (IB) official says that Babri Masjid demolition was planned 10 months in advance by top leaders of RSS, BJP and VHP".
  • Citation [59] is Tully, Mark (5 December 2002). "Tearing down the Babri Masjid". BBC News. This says that "Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other organisations supporting it... had given a commitment to the government and the courts that... no damage would be done to the mosque." "Trouble first broke out in the space below us when young men wearing bright yellow headbands managed to break through the barriers. The police stood by and watched, while some men wearing saffron headbands and appointed by the organisers to control the crowd did try to stop them. They soon gave up, however, and joined the intruders in beating up television journalists, smashing their cameras and trampling on their tape recorders. Encouraged by this, thousands charged towards the outer cordon of police protecting the mosque. Very quickly, this cordon collapsed and I saw young men clambering along the branches of trees, dropping over the final barricade, and rushing towards the mosque." It then goes on to describe how people started demolishing the mosque, that the telephone lines were cut, and activists locked journalists in a room until after the demolition was complete.
  • Citation [61] is "Report: Sequence of events on December 6". NDTV. 23 November 2009. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2012. This says "But, it says, no appeal was made to the Kar Sevaks not to enter the sanctum sanctorum or not to demolish the structure. It notes: 'This selected act of the leaders itself speaks of the hidden intentions of one and all being to accomplish demolition of the disputed structure.'"
A riot "is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people. Riots typically involve destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings."
I suggest that amend the first sentence of the paragraph to read as follows:
  1. ^ "Babri Masjid demolition was planned 10 months in advance". New Indian Express. 31 January 2005. Archived from the original on 17 January 2008.
  2. ^ "Report: Sequence of events on December 6". NDTV. 23 November 2009. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  3. ^ "Ayodhya dispute: The complex legal history of India's holy site". BBC News. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  4. ^ Tully, Mark (5 December 2002). "Tearing down the Babri Masjid". BBC News.
All of these sources are already used in the article, they just need giving reference names to avoid duplicate citations.
I think there should also be amendments to Ayodhya dispute#Demolition of the Babri Mosque.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not have online access to the 2007 edition of India After Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha. But Google Books does have the 2011 edition and what it calls page xxxvii is equivocal about whether the top leaders planned the demolition, but states very clearly that it was planned in advance, engineers had been asked to identify the structure's weak spot, and volunteers had been trained on how best to demolish the structure. In the 2019 edition, the pages in question are 622-623.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC), updated 19:54 (UTC)
I find this also in my 2002 edition in Chapter 27 titled Riots. I think the discussion is still speculative. So we can't say anything in Wikipedia voice. But it is fine to state that there have been indications of prior planning.
In fact, we can vastly beef up the RJB movement coverage using this book. The idea never occurred to me! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I've been planning to overhaul this article using Guha and other available scholarly sources for a while, but haven't found the time I've needed. If you'd like to contribute to a userspace draft, feel free (it's listed on my sandbox page). Not to suggest you shouldn't make edits to the article itself, of course. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
What I plan to do is to rewrite the section Ayodhya dispute#Demolition of the Babri Mosque - if I do, I will post it here for comment first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Toddy1: I brought Demolition of the Babri Masjid to GA some time ago; the material therein may be useful. Ram Rath Yatra is also a GA. It's the broader ones I haven't yet mustered the energy for. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Tone of this article

Toddy1, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, people in the Indian subcontinent actually read Wikipedia articles. In muslim majority areas of the subcontinent, anything found online that implies anything that seems to hurt Muslims or Islam is used to start riots. Have you guys read how the 2020 Bangalore riots started? Please be careful and responsible. Don't portray Muslims as victims - you will be the cause of another riot.—Dr2Rao (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think your comment has been placed under the wrong heading. As a reply it does not seem to be relevant to the technical issue of Citation [7] and Citation [83]. If it was meant to be about another topic under discussion, please could you move the comment to the bottom of that topic. If it was meant as a new topic, please could you place a heading level 2 above it. A heading level 2 looks like this: == Citation problem ==. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Dr2Rao: Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:YESPOV. Presenting all available and relevant factual information, as described in reliable sources, is Wikipedia's core purpose. If learning history drives some people to violence, the fault is with those people, not with those who seek to write history. We are only at fault if we fail to present that history accurately and neutrally. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation problem

Citation [7] maybe once led to the right place, but it does not do so anymore. I think the date of the judgment given in Citation [7] is wrong. Citation [83] appears to be thing that was meant. The URL leads to a pages with some relevant links for judgments.

Does anyone object to my changing Citation [7] to Citation [83], and improving the details on the citation template for the latter? I think it is worth mentioning that the date of the judgments is given as 30 September 2010 (though the page was last updated 15 January 2011).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

There is a sentence in the lead, "It further ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternate five-acre tract of land to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to build the mosque." Please add a link to the last word, mosque to the Ayodhya mosque like this: mosque. 2401:4900:3762:6EF9:8A3F:4BDE:B56F:8FEE (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayodhya_dispute/Archive_1&oldid=1201426602"