Jump to content

Talk:Ram Mandir: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Not completed
Links
Line 429: Line 429:
{{Edit fully-protected|Ram Mandir|answered=no}}
{{Edit fully-protected|Ram Mandir|answered=no}}
As the temple is not completed yet (see also first sentence); can it be removed from the infobox that it is completed? It states in the Infobox “Completed 22 January 2024; 2 days ago” This is confusing. [[Special:Contributions/109.38.134.82|109.38.134.82]] ([[User talk:109.38.134.82|talk]]) 08:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
As the temple is not completed yet (see also first sentence); can it be removed from the infobox that it is completed? It states in the Infobox “Completed 22 January 2024; 2 days ago” This is confusing. [[Special:Contributions/109.38.134.82|109.38.134.82]] ([[User talk:109.38.134.82|talk]]) 08:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

==Links==

{{Edit fully-protected|Ram Mandir|answered=no}}

Can this sentence

“ was done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, Nritya Gopal Das, on 22 January 2024.”

Be changed into a sentence with links

was done by Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]], Chief Minister [[Yogi Adityanath]], Chief of the RSS, [[Mohan Bhagwat]] and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, [[Nritya Gopal Das]], on 22 January 2024.

Thanks [[Special:Contributions/109.38.134.82|109.38.134.82]] ([[User talk:109.38.134.82|talk]]) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:20, 24 January 2024

Brief mention of the critique in the lede.

@SpunkyGeek, do note that the Lede cannot delve into the intricate details of the entire dispute. I have written about the dispute and criticisms to be as concise as possible. StarkReport (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996, Respectfully, in actuality, the dispite regarding Ram Mandir is highly WP:Relevant and WP:Notable. It is integral to the temple's historical narrative.
Since we have mentioned the claims of ASI which were strongly contested by archaeologists and other people alike, not mentioning about the disagreements even briefly, would violate WP:Balance and WP:NPOV.
Kindly note that I intially only wrote "However, the ASI report has been heavily disputed by critics." It was only after the insistence of SpunkyGeek, I extended it by describing the dispute regarding the temple.
The WP:ReliableSources and its DUE nature merits its presence on the Lede.
@The Herald, can you take a look at this? StarkReport (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with StarkReport and SpunkyGeek edits. The ASI critique is relevant and must be included in lede for NPOV. Any deletion to the lede further must be discussed in the talk page for consensus. @Abhishek0831996: Please don't remove well cited portions from lede when the additions are under discussion in talk page. It will be considered as WP:disruptive editing. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


SpunkyGeek Hasn't shared his opinion yet. I find the long criticism of ASI report to be undue because this criticism is not only futile but also not central to this subject. It should be removed. NavjotSR (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that the sentence as a whole is undue for the lead. Right now it is bigger than the need even if there had to be no objection against it. I would reduce the current sentence to just "However, ASI claims were heavily disputed by critics," for now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism section, in itself, is relevant. But the length is something that's bothering me too. The discussion in the section above, about Babri Masijd also was putting too much undue weight on ASI and it's report. So, like Abhishek said, a single sentence, describing the ASI report critique, with less than 15 words should suffice, to avoid undue weight here also. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NavjotSR, The subject matter is about a temple whose history is disputed and its historical narrative is inherently tied to it. Hence, it is more WP:Due than things like "alleged misuse of donation" issues. Claiming that it is "futile" unfortunately demonstrates lack of grasp.
@Abhishek0831996, The thing is, there is a two warring sides to this temple issue. One side states that the archaeological evidence supports their view, while the other side states that it actually discredits the opposing view and even supports their own. Now we already have given enough weight to one side as "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing non-Islamic structure." as well as "In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque. The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic."
Now even after this, not mentioning about the dispute would be in stark contrast to WP:Balance.
It's like: "According to xxx scientists (or, in this case, archaeologists), this is the case. However, xxx scientists (or, in this case, archaeologists) disagree with that view and criticize it." StarkReport (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That critics response should be removed. Supreme Court verdict is final word. After that other narrative created by news portal doesn't matter. Also the controversies are added in header, no need to mention it in lead. Critique response should be in 2019 Ayodhya Dispute verdict, not at temple page and absolutely not in lead. Themodifie7 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"other narrative created by news portal", Kindly read my above response, the scepticism is held by archaeologists and historians who are Wikipedia's authoritative source. No one is arguing that whether the Supreme Court verdict will be changed or not, just that the foundational premises that justified the decree, is doubted by experts.
The only WP:Due thing is missing from this article, is a section under Controversies area, that details "Historical and Archaeological Controversy" regarding Hindu and Muslims claims, and Babri Masjid Demolition and the Communal Tensions. All of which can be written in a single section compactly.
Please bear in that that the NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and we are taking a significant risk by contemplating removal based on selectively choosing parts of the narrative.
Here are additional sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] StarkReport (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no argument that it shouldn't be included. The critique must be included for the NPOV and DUE, especially when maintaining a neutral point of view is one of five pillars. That part is non negotiable and Supreme Court of India doesn't have the final say in Wikipedia. Any criticism must be added, without doubt. The only argument is about the length of the sentence. As I said, a maximum of 15 words or less than that should suffice for the ASI findings criticism. Also, it is not an argument created by any news portals, but by scientists and historians. Since they are supported by various independent sources that are reliable and are connected to the verdict that made the existence of the temple possible, it must be included. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant claims that came after supreme court Verdict. And it's been added in lead in Ram Mandir page while it doesn't require here if it really matter it should be in 2019 Supreme Court Verdict page. It wasn't discussed before adding, why to discuss before removing it. Themodifie7 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still of the view that the criticism should be removed as a whole. Will still wait for the view of SpunkyGeek. For now, I have shortened the criticism per above discussion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996 exactly my point, sources aren't reliable and it's biased. Also recently Irfan Habib accepted there was temple at that site. How can it be relevant anymore. Also the last paragraph of controversies needs to be removed from lead. There is already a header for this. Themodifie7 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Themodifie7, Based on your cherrypicking, we might just remove everything that goes against the state-owned narrative StarkReport (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking?
After choosing articles and authors who are infamous for their biasness towards one perticular religion to validate your point?
Insane. 103.36.80.253 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully IP, there are devout and respected Hindu historians and scholars who have disputed ASI claims. See the sources given above as well as in the article. Also read Ram Janmabhoomi article. StarkReport (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald, @Abhishek0831996, Given varying heated debates and contrasting claims about whether a Hindu, Islamic, or "non-Islamic" structure existed beneath the site, it seems prudent to reconsider and refine the wording of the first line as: The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after the demolition of an existing structure whose origins is debated(or, with controversy over its origins). StarkReport (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. See WP:RGW. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello guys,
Thanks for collaborating.
Appreciate your contributions.
Regarding ASI critique I think this page is not the place to put it (refer WP:RELEVANCE). We have another page called Ayodhya Dispute or for all critiques about the land and the structure. Also, WP:LEDE was not followed because there was almost nothing mentioned in the body of the article about critique on ASI observations.
As this is a matter of high concern I insist on following guidelines strictly. SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @SpunkyGeek, Regarding "WP:LEDE was not followed because there was almost nothing mentioned in the body", I did note about that which is why I wrote that: "The only WP:Due thing is missing from this article, is a section under Controversies area, that details "Historical and Archaeological Controversy" regarding Hindu and Muslims claims, and Babri Masjid Demolition and the Communal Tensions. All of which can be written in a single section compactly."
If given green light by other editors, I'm willing to write a single section for this issue in a concise manner. As this matter about the temple's history is more Relevant than few other minor controversies. StarkReport (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996, See Ayodhya dispute and Archaeology of Ayodhya. And also kindly read WP:RGW's "Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Finding neutral ways of presenting them is what we do." which is exactly what is proposed above.

And we have a wealth of "information that is verifiable using reliable sources." StarkReport (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Avikunthak, Ashish. "B.B. Lal and the Making of Hindutva Archaeology". Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  2. ^ Varghese, Rachel A. "Archaeology for the courtroom: the Ayodhya Case and the fashioning of a hybrid episteme". Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  3. ^ Etter, Anne-Julie. "Creating Suitable Evidence of the Past? Archaeology, Politics, and Hindu Nationalism in India from the End of the Twentieth Century to the Present". Retrieved January 21, 2024.
  4. ^ Jaya, Menon. "Was There a Temple under the Babri Masjid? Reading the Archaeological 'Evidence'". Retrieved January 21, 2024.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

Remove the word hypothesized. It is not hypothesized birthplace. 2409:4042:4D30:4BCA:3069:6E2F:982B:13AD (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and maintains a neutral point of view. Also, refer to WP:RNPOV. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald (Benison) Actually, it is surprising to see that in the Bethlehem article , the world 'hypothized' is not used when mentioning about Jesus of Nazereth. Here is the copied sentence from that article, In the New Testament, the city is identified as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. So, I have changed this sentence mentioning the Hindu scripture, Valmiki Ramayana, a great epic of India. If this edit is not acceptable then the same principle has to be applied in the Bethlehem article as well. The intent of Wikipedia is to provide free, unbiased information and not to create doubt in the minds of readers who happen to be Hindus who constitute nearly 1 billion of the world population. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges, mate. You may take it upto the talk page of Bethlehem article for any change you need. Also, Historicity of Jesus is not doubted by scholars and hence Bethlehem is not a hypothesized place of birth. Kindly find reliable references for your argument and then we can change the wordings of the lead. Kindly don't bring up personal views and religious views into the talk page for discussion. Refer to WP:RNPOV for more clear understanding. Thanks.
The Herald (Benison) Rama is of much anterior period than Jesus and therefore the historicity as per today's standards need not to exist. Hindus believe so as it is mentioned in their holy scriptures. So is Christian beliefs that Jesus 'got lifted to Heaven' or Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) 'splitting the moon'. To a rational mind, any religion seem to be superstition and ridiculous. Whether it is Jesus or Rama, these are part of religious BELIEFS of particular group of people, Hindus and Christians, respectively. Wikipedia is there to provide information neutrally to readers and not to create doubts or hurt sentiments of people. Be it Islamophia, Hinduphobia or Christianphobia, Wikipedia is not a place of them. When using the word hypothesized, provide a proper reference that is neutral. I am re-editing the article as per Wikipedia guidelines. Let the matter be settled by Wikipedia administrators if required. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term has been added after discussing in the talk page before, years ago (check the archives and page history) and is from the reliable source, BBC. Any addition or removal will be considered as disruptive editing and must be discussed for consensus in talk page. Also, this is a Contentious topic. Kindly keep that in mind. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald (Benison) If the birthplace of Rama was discussed and settled then why the article on Rama don't have this information? Why not replace the word hypothesized with 'As per Hindu beliefs' or 'as per Valmiki Ramayana'? How does this edit can be disruptive editing? For your information, the Supreme Court of India relied on much better neutral and valid sources than the BBC while dealing with the Ayodhya dispute. Do you mean the Supreme Court made a mistake in taking note that millions of Hindus believed for many centuries that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Rama? Even foreigners who visited India during the Middle Ages noticed the reverence of Hindus for Ayodhya and the surroundings of Masjid-i-Janmasthan.
It is better to have a genuine debate on this issue to make sure that Wikipedia stands as a neutral platform rather than promoting Hinduphobia, Islamophobia, etc. As this is a Contentious topic, how come one can come conclusion that Ayodhya is a hypothesized birthplace of Rama? Many Hindu sages and saints such as Valmiki, Tulsidas, Bhadrachala Ramadasu, Tyagaraja etc have mentioned in their devotional works about Rama's birthplace. Even Mahatma Gandhi was an ardent devotee of Rama. It is important to separate the political discourse around Ayodhya from its pre-eminent spiritual importance among Hindus. Even there is no consensus on the status of Jesus of Nazareth among Abrahamic religions. He is God in Christianity, a Prophet in Islam, and a false prophet in Judaism. At the end of the day, these are all religious beliefs and there is no scientific proof of Jesus being any of these claims. So, this birthplace of Rama also falls under a similar category. It would be good if more Wikipedia editors joined this debate for helping to make this article more neutral. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Ram Mandir Prana Pratishtha into Ram Mandir

Albeit a historical event, this is a one time event and therefore, can be made part of main page of the Temple, Anamdas (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant event. Well-structured article with global coverage [1][2] --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Event is notable enough to have a separate article and is required to have a separate one to expand it in detail. The main article can have the gist of the event and a template showing link to this article. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASI report

The sentences in this article indicate that ASI reports are seriously flawed but the Allahabad high court and Supreme court of India were oblivious of the points raised by critics. It is important to clarify the distinction between historians and archeologists among these critics as latter's views are of more significance. Better someone make changes to weed out this bias. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the ASI found clear physical evidence there is no proof such evidence is fabricated except for verbal testimony by the opposition which itself is unreliable. Also the scriptures mention a temple in a roughly similar area and fables do state of its destruction. Either give reasons it is flawed that are well researched or don't call it flawed. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

{{STATUS=COMPLETED}} Noname168 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: It will be automatically updated tomorrow. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

change second paragraph to this:

In the 16th century CE, the temple was demolished to build Babri Masjid on top of it. The idols of Rama and Sita were found in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.Since then the land has been disputed in the court to identify the origins of the land. Various archeological surveys were conducted, including those by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and K.K. Mohammed, which identified the structure beneath demolished Babri Masjid,to be non-Islamic. Additionally, hindu god idols were found. The court ruled that there was indeed a temple present before the mosque, and handed the land over to a trust to rebuild the temple. The court also allocated separate land for the rebuilding of Babri Masjid. Unmisinformation (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Most of the things in your request is same as already in the article. Moreover, you have not cited any reliable sources to your request, without which, no information will be changed. Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Wording

‘The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.’ The last sentence creates the idea that the idols found in the mosque were fake and propaganda, and that Hindu “terrorists” destroyed the mosque using the aforementioned idea as a shield. Please note that that information is not concrete. I thaa been scientifically proven that there was a temple on that land dating back to the 12th century. The phrase “ placed in the mosque” is therefore misleading. Siraraman (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Nishant229 (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is talking about the Babri Masjid, which was built in AD 1528–29.So idols of Rama and Sita found in the mosque are not seen as fake or propaganda, but rather the idea of a temple existing before Babri Masjid was supported by very few reliable sources and opposed by many (see: WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS), and Wikipidea maintains a neutral point of view .(See:WP:RNPOV) Harvici 09:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add more historical facts and this event do not suddenly starts on 1949 A.D. by one event.
It has lot of history.
1607 to 1611 A.D. -
William Finch visited India from 1607 to 1611 A.D.,
his travel account has been published by William Foster
in his book "Early Travels in India".
William Finch mentioned about ruins of the Ramachandra’s castle and houses. The travel accounts also noticed the belief of Indians that Ramchandra was born, who took flesh upon him.
I am doing my research hoping you will do as well to make this better for readers. 47.20.129.3 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half info of Shri Ram Mandir on Wikipedia

The thing is, before Babri Masjid, it was already a birthplace of Shri Ram,but the author very carelessly did the research (maybe intentionally) and removed that part (most probably because of a lack of evidence), but he didn't forget to highlight the other accusations of political benefits from it and accuse many others without any proof(also, mentioning the 'non-Islamic' structure instead of the structure of a Hindu temple shows the real intentions of the author). Nishant229 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The birthplace of Jesus is not doubted by scholars and have reliable sources , but in the case of Shri Rama , there are no reliable sources. The non-Islamic part is that many reliable sources mentioned it as Non-Islamic structure, like (BBC) . Please don't bring your religious and personal feelings to the talk page for discussion. (refer to WP:RNPOV) Harvici 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, who are you again? 2409:4050:2D33:60B3:0:0:3A4B:CD0C (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are violating Wikipidea policies by expressing your personal and religious views. Wikipidea maintains a neutral point of view regarding everything; it does not take bias for a certain person or group.And I am Harvici, a proud editor of Wikipidea. If you still have a problem, let this be settled by an admin. Thanks Harvici 12:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Father Joseph Tieffenthaler visited India between
1766-1771 A.D. He wrote historical and geographical
description of India in latin. In the description of the Province of Oudh, following is stated:-
“But a place especially famous is the one called Sitha Rassoi i.e. the table of Sita, wife of Ram, adjoining to the city in the South, and is situated on a mud hill.
Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same
place. 47.20.129.3 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources for your claim.Thanks. Harvici 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024 (2)

PM Narendra Modi Breaks His 11-Day Fast After 'Pran Pratishtha' Ceremony at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya.[1]Mahesh102 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "PM Modi Breaks His 11-Day Fast After 'Pran Pratishtha' Ceremony at Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya". Lokmat Times. Retrieved 22 January 2024.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024 (2)

On 22 January 2014, PM Narendra Modi Complete Ram Mandir Pran Prathistha Ceremony.[1] Mahesh102 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "First Visuals of Ram Lalla Idol: PM Narendra Modi Completes Pran Prathistha of Ram Mandir (Watch Video)". Lokmat Times. Retrieved 22 January 2024.

Regarding poor (absolutely terrible) image quality of the idol and the temple

Can someone please fix this. Toastinopler (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, all the images are screenshots from official YouTube channels and no media under CC BY SA have been released yet. The images will be added, as soon as they are released under appropriate licenses. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024 (3)

Please replace 'Ram Mandir' with 'Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir'. 116.75.127.119 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, the titles of the articles are per WP:COMMONNAME. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Construction status of the temple

Please discuss anything related to the construction status of the temple here

As of now the media sources have only confirmed that the Prana Pratishtha has been completed.

According to the plan of the temple complex the construction of outer minor temples (for Lord Hanuman, Jatayu etc). Hence the status is still under-construction. Please state your views on this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Altoumulus comments on this Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mention of Ayodhya as one of Sapta Puri in the lede

Information that Ayodhya is one of the seven holy cities to Hindus can be added in the lede in a small sentence. This piece of information may be necessary to make readers understand why Hindus had pre-eminent importance to Ayodhya for ages. I tried to add that but got reverted citing the need to provide non-primary sources as a reference. Someone can make this edit to provide this information. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats sounds like something to be added onto Ayodhya article, not Ram Mandir article. Also, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. An article lede about Ram Mandir should talk about the temple, it's past and present, it's construction and it's consecration, and the controversies attached to it. It doesn't have to describe the city it is located. We have bluelinks to the article of the cities for that very purpose. Wikipedia is not a directory or a comprehensive collection of links where all the information has to be given in one article. Kindly read WP:LEDE in depth tp understand what is to be added onto lede. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution about lead can be discussed here

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ram Mandir Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article's lead, this section
"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.[8][9][10] In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque.[11] The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic.[12]",
appears to be misleading. Firstly I think it belongs to the history section of the article more than the lead and secondly, it says that the site was previously a mosque called Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE and the idols of Ram and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949.
It is misleading because, the Babri Masjid was built there after destroying a ram temple there which was there before this mosque which is very clearly mentioned in the article of Babri Masjid [[Babri Masjid#:~:text=Many Hindus believe,8][9]|here1]] and here2. The court ruling about Ram temple being there before the masjid was built should also be equally mentioned in the lead and also it should be placed in history rather than the lead. A little explanation seems right too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this in here 1 above, taken from Babri Masjid article,
The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("Rama's fort"). According to Hindus, the Mughal commander Mir Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site. The existence of this temple is a matter of controversy. The Archaeological Survey of India conducted an excavation of the disputed site on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. Various materials have been found during excavation which suggest the presence of a Hindu structure beneath. The Allahabad High court noted that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and the excavated underneath structure was not Islamic in nature.
Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. In 1949, idols of Rama and Sita were placed inside the mosque, after which the government locked the building to avoid further disputes. Court cases were filed by both Hindus and Muslims asking for access.
here 2 refers to this,
On September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple.
Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're proposing either:
  1. Removing the Babri Masjid content from the lead
  2. or adding some Ram temple content to the lead
For option 2, can you draft some specific text. How do other editors feel about these options? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to do both, because the Babri Masjid present section in the lead is too large to be mentioned there, it can moved to history section. I will try to draft and reply the text here in some time. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the modification that I wish to propose:
"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India, delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple. The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic."
Also requesting you to move this text to the history section of this article.
A line mentioning about this can be added in lead as following if required: ''The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama in 16th centure CE" Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the proposal. Waiting on input from others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 1 line summary is enough. A para is undue in lead. However, the second part of "The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama in 16th century CE" is disputed and unsourced by references. Alternate wording: "The site is subject of the Ayodhya dispute and is the former location of the Babri Masjid, which demolished in 1992." Redtigerxyz Talk 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redtigerxyz. There is no reliable sources suggesting the existence of pre Babri Masjid temple. That is unsourced and disputed and hence, should not be added. The first part looks okay to me. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources which suggest the existence of temple. A reliable article which says that the ASI survey says there is evidence of a temple beneath the mosque. - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/22/babri-mosque-to-ram-temple-a-timeline-from-1528-to-2024
A sentence following it, but many archaeologists and Muslims dispute the findings, can be observed which may suggest that it is disputed. So it is not right to call that there are no reliable sources suggesting the existence of pre Babri masjid temple. Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article states , and I quote 'Hindus claim the Babri Masjid was built on the site of a temple during the first Mughal ruler Babar' , claiming and existing is two different things. The Allahabad High Court Judgements mentions Non-Islamic Structure . I propose the following edit
"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE . The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court of India, delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple. The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic." Harvici 08:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is controversy about the situation of a mosque and mandir on the same site, similar to Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But why is this placed into a conflict between Pakistan and India? It's related to Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus. There's no particular reason why Pakistanis care more about this mosque than Arabs or Indonesians, they have a kinship over religious beliefs.

This idea that all Indian Muslims have some affiliation Pakistan, Persians and Arabs needs to be put to bed. The friendliness is almost purely over shared Islamic heritage that you can also find with Indonesians for example. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a contentious topic area that covers all of the countries collectively, similar to WP:ARBEE], rather than being about the conflicts between them necessarily. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it cover Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular though? It's controversial among a section of Muslims throughout the world, but especially India. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not India and Pakistan and Afghanistan, its India and/or Pakistan and/or Afghanistan. It covers any topic that is disputed in India or Pakistan or Afghanistan or even the ines between the country. It covers it all. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 January 2024

It is not hypothesized birthplace of Shri Ram. It is The Actual Birthplace of Shri Ram. 110.235.235.86 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this request is neither uncontroversial nor supported by consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modification proposal as the page is fully protected

I propose the following modification

FROM THIS The bhumi pujan (transl. ground breaking ceremony) for the commencement of the construction of Ram Mandir was performed on 5 August 2020, by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.[13] The temple, currently under construction, is being supervised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The prana pratishtha (transl. consecration) of the temple is scheduled for 22 January 2024.[14]

TO THIS

On 5 August 2020, the Bhumi Pujan (transl. ground breaking ceremony) for the commencement of the construction of Ram Mandir was performed by Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India.[8] The temple, currently under construction, is being supervised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.

On 22 January 2024, Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, served as the Mukhya Yajman (transl. chief patron) of rituals for the event and performed the Prana Pratishtha (transl. consecration) of Ram Lalla.[9][10] The Prana Pratishtha ceremony was organised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra.[11][12] Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations which confirm that Narendra Modi was Mukhya Yajman and citations which confirm the event and ritual of Prana Pratishtha -
https://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/ayodhya-chief-yajman-modi-completes-pran-pratishtha-in-84-seconds-heres-why-jan-22-was-chosen-101705915840113.html
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/photo/pm-modi-at-ram-mandir-in-ayodhya-for-pran-pratishtha-ceremony-2491923-2024-01-22 Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an improvement that is unlikely to be controversial. It would help if the wikilinks and references were included in the proposal. Waiting a bit longer in case there's input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be helpful. Thank you
On 5 August 2020, the Bhumi Pujan (transl. ground breaking ceremony) for the commencement of the construction of Ram Mandir was performed by Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India.[1] The temple, currently under construction, is being supervised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust.
On 22 January 2024, Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, served as the Mukhya Yajman (transl. chief patron) of rituals for the event and performed the Prana Pratishtha (transl. consecration) of Ram Lalla.[2][3] The Prana Pratishtha ceremony was organised by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra.[4][5] Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can be done to avoid overlinking. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done , along with the weak suggested by The Herald. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Can you make it into single paragraph? Two paragraphs are not needed. CharlesWain (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Six temples of different deities in Ayodhya Ram temple's final blueprint". The Hindu. PTI. 13 September 2021. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 22 November 2021. Retrieved 22 November 2021.
  2. ^ "Ayodhya Ram Mandir LIVE updates: PM Modi in garbha griha, rituals start". Hindustan Times. 2024-01-22. Archived from the original on 22 January 2024. Retrieved 2024-01-22.
  3. ^ "Ayodhya Ram Mandir Inauguration Live Updates, Ram Mandir Pran Pratishtha Ceremony: Chief Yajman Narendra Modi takes 'sankalp' for consecration ceremony at Ram temple in Ayodhya, Ganesh puja under way". The Times of India. 2024-01-22. Archived from the original on 22 January 2024. Retrieved 2024-01-22.
  4. ^ Bureau, The Hindu (2023-11-16). "Ayodhya Ram temple will open to the public on this date". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 10 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-10. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ "Ram Temple Consecration: PM Modi's Full Schedule For Ayodhya Temple Event". NDTV.com. Archived from the original on 22 January 2024. Retrieved 2024-01-22.

In the news nomination

Protected edit request on 22 January 2024 (2)

Since the article is nominated for WP:ITN, some minor copy-editing can be suggested here which admins can easily edit without getting into any content disputes.

  1. In the para "Consecration" please wikilink Paduka.
  2. In the 2nd para of "Construction" please change the statement to make it as: "It was officially announced by Champat Rai, the General Secretary of the Sri Ram Janmbhoomi Kshetra Trust that 22 January 2024 would be the scheduled date for the installation of the Ram Lalla idol in the garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum)."
  3. In the 2nd para of "Construction" please change the statement to make it as: "On 25 October 2023, a formal invitation was extended Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the ceremony." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 2 and #3 are done. For #1, is linking one part of a longer non-English term helpful? Could we add a translation?
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd also be better if the two cite errors are fixed. I unfortunately cannot invest into investigating them. Someone, please do the favor 🙏 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cite errors are resolved. I could use a second opinion on the Irfan Habib source. Is it that Habib is the author and the Aligarh Historical Society the publisher? Or did the society author the piece and Habib just write the preface? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for resolving the cites.
    My 2c on Habib's source: Reading the preface, it seems to me that the AHS collectively authored it, as the 3rd-person us/we/our is the only reference used to refer to the authorship rather than the 1st-person I/my/me, [and of course published it] with Habib representing the work, couldn't say how much of the work can be attributed solely to him. As a whole, I'd cite the work as that of the AHS' but not Habib's (as a historian) - aka as simply AHS' response/analysis/opinion/... to the judgement. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 23:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dax. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is believed the temple was attacked and destroyed by the first Mughal emperor, Babur, in 1528, in his series of temple raids across northern India"

Is there a better source for this claim? The current source is an opinion piece in The Print, which is not ideal. The article "Ayodhya Issue" in The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism states free link According to Hindu nationalist ideologues, a temple had been built on the birthplace of God Ram (Ramjanmabhoomi); but in 1528 Babur, the first Moghol emperor, had this temple replaced by a mosque, the Babri Masjid. Although there is no definite archaeological evidence for the existence of a temple on that site. Given that RS do not seem to treat the claim for a pre-existing temple as unequivocal, neither should we. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. StarkReport (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic repeated content that is WP:TENDENTIOUS

The content about Supreme Court stance on ASI report and accepting them as valid is already given above the critique part.

The addition of the same information: "But, these became futile as the Supreme Court, after detailed proceedings, accepted the ASI report as valid. The Supreme Court in its landmark jugdement concluded that the underlying structure beneath the mosque was not an Islamic structure, and also that there is clear evidence that the disputed site was believed by Hindus as the Janmabhoomi (birthsite) of Rama." in a forceful manner in a subsequent section appears redundant and violates WP:NPOV and WP:Balance. StarkReport (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture details addition requested

Hello, @Firefangledfeathers can you please add these details,

"The Shri Ram Darbar is situated on the first floor, features five halls, namely Nritya Mandap, Rang Mandap, Sabha Mandap, Prarthana Mandap, and Kirtan Mandap. The pillars and walls will be adorned with statues of deities, while mandirs dedicated to Surya, Bhagwati, Ganesh, and Shiv will be placed at the four corners of the compound. Additionally, on the northern and southern arms, temples dedicated to Annapurna and Hanuman will be constructed, respectively.

The temple's foundation incorporates a 14-meter-thick layer of roller-compacted concrete, creating the appearance of artificial rock. A 21-foot-high granite plinth serves as protection against ground moisture, and the construction avoids the use of iron. The complex includes ramps and lifts for elderly and differently-abled devotees, along with a dedicated block featuring a bathing area and washrooms. Additionally, there is a pilgrims facility center catering to 25,000 people, equipped with medical and locker facilities. The project places significant emphasis on environmental and water conservation, leaving 70% of the 70-acre area as green space."

Here's the source. (Indian Express) SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpunkyGeek, if consensus develops for such an addition, feel free to use the edit request template. Another admin might get to it before me. Others might disagree, but to me the draft seems a bit too closely paraphrased. It would help to drop some detail and maybe find another source that covers some of the architectural info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not hypothesised. It is proven that it is Ram janmabhoomi.

It is proven it is Ram janmabhoomi. It is not hypothesized. 2406:7400:92:D11B:905F:D13B:14B5:BB98 (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources. Thanks Harvici 14:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to DAB page

In the history section, sentence The Supreme Court in its landmark jugdement concluded that the underlying structure beneath the mosque was not an Islamic structure, and also that there is clear evidence that the disputed site was believed by Hindus as the Janmabhoomi (birthsite) of Rama, the link on Janmabhoomi is to a dab page of that name, and nothing on the dab page is a correct target for this link. Please can it be unlinked? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done , thanks! Is Ram Janmabhoomi a potential link target? Is it ok to link it again since it's linked in that section's hatnote? Should it be added to the dab page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

According to the Infobox the temple is completed. However the first sentence is still: “The Ram Mandir is a Hindu temple under construction...” Please change the first sentence into

“The Ram Mandir is a 2024 completed Hindu temple...” 109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The temple is under construction currently so first line can't be changed to "COMPLETED TEMPLE". Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, per above. Should the infobox be changed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers, Should not be done: Since the temple is under construction, no changes should be made (neither in first line, nor in infobox) on its building status. TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently under construction. Only consecration ceremony is done. Consecration ≠ Building completion! TheProEditor11 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can maybe add something like (open for worship) just below Under Construction. This can satisfy everyone. ShaanSenguptaTalk 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheProEditor11, I'm asking if the infobox should be changed since it currently says "Completed 22 January 2024". I understand the difference between consecration and building completion. You may be misinterpreting my comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers just one suggestion. We can remove the last para of lede as it is repeated. The same para is present in the Controversies section of the article. Do we really need the exact same things at two places in the article?
The para is - The temple has attracted a number of controversies due to alleged misuse of donation, sidelining of its major activists and politicisation of the temple by the Bharatiya Janata Party. ShaanSenguptaTalk 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This change would probably be controversial. If consensus develops, use an edit request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


If the temple is not completed yet, why is it still in the infobox? This is confusing. 109.38.134.82 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing categories

Missing categories:

109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about these ones. Is the building complete, and should the year of "establishment" be the year of consecration or year of completion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both are different. If you are not knowing, kindly ask other editors for the same who edit and know these things better (I am assuming you non-Indian). Building completion and consecration are two different things. Building of Shri Ram Mandir, Ayodhya is under construction but the consecration has been done! Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheProEditor11: thanks for your answer. But in that case what about adding Category:Buildings and structures under construction in India? 109.38.134.82 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable to me. Leaving it for a bit in case there are any objections. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category that can be removed

The category Category:Ayodhya can be removed, because the article is already in sub categories Category:Buildings and structures in Ayodhya and Category:Ayodhya dispute.

109.38.134.82 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the word hypothesized from the article

My Request to Wikipedia is to please remove the word hypothesized from the page as it promotes the misinformation regarding to the Shri Ram Mandir In Ayodhya. Archeological Survey Of India Has proved that there was a old Ram temple beneath the Babri Structure. So the word hypothesized is Not justified in this page The Indoman 360 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rama is a mythological figure. There's no proof that he was born at the specific site upon whnch the Ram Mandir temple currently stands. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, religion itself is mythology, but most Abrahamic Wikipedia pages refer to their stories as literature anyway. Why the double standard only here? I don't see you expressing your frustration over there. And yes, you can call it whataboutery, but the same standard must be applied everywhere in order to make Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia, whatever that standard may be.
Regarding the word 'hypothesis,' it would be preferable if selective editing is not done. The standard applied to Abrahamic religions and their figures should be applied here. I'm not asking to whitewash anything as you would do there; just at least keep the lede free from extreme bias. 'Believed' is the right word, as per me, but I guess that it's too much to ask, considering how targeted India and Hinduism-related pages are. 2409:40E3:3A:B5D6:39E1:3B6C:5941:E7F4 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "hypothesis" is the best word. I think "supposed" is probably better. There's no evidence from the Ramayana that the site where Rama was supposedly born is the site of the former Babri Masijd. This appears to have been a development in local oral tradition that emerged during the 19th or perhaps 18th century. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of Ayodhya as the hypothesized birthplace of Ram is based on various historical and cultural perspectives, and it's essential to reflect these viewpoints without endorsing any specific belief. Wikipedia does not assert the absolute truth of any religious or historical claim but aims to present information from reliable sources, acknowledging different interpretations.
Regarding your comparison to pages on Abrahamic religions, it's important to note that Wikipedia strives to maintain neutrality across all articles (see:WP:NPOV). If there are concerns about the representation of stories or beliefs on pages related to Abrahamic religions, those issues should be addressed individually, and corrections can be made following the same neutral point of view principle , so you can raise any specific concerns or suggestions you have on the article's talk page.Thanks. Harvici 07:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 23 January 2024

It is currently constructed and not under construction, please do the needful and change it. Tomuton (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please join the discussion above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history part of Ram Mandir

a sentence says that Idol was placed in mosque in 1949, however I believe it should say a Idol was found in mosque in 1949. So basically, please replace placed word with found. 103.158.146.171 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources.Thanks. Harvici 07:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 23 January 2024 (2)

Change From: The Ram Mandir is a Hindu temple under construction in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India.

To: The Ram Mandir is a Hindu temple now fully constructed and inaugurated by Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi on 22 January 2024, in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India. Yogeshmakhija (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please join in the above discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 23 January 2024 (3)

Second sentence, change from

The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE.

to

The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid mosque which was built in 16th century CE.

(Emphasis for demonstration only, not to be included in the actual article.)

Because what the heck is a Babri Masjid? I figured that it was an earlier Hindu temple or something. Sure there's a link but links take you off the page and are for extra enrichment not for basic quick definitions when they're needed. Yes I know that "masjid" means means mosque, but the typical reader will not know this and we are not pedants here.

(Also the normal construction for "built in 16th century" would be "built in the16th century". Maybe that's a Brit thing idk, but I don't recall ever seeing it. But you're an admin you can fix it or not on your own initiative.)Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not completed

As the temple is not completed yet (see also first sentence); can it be removed from the infobox that it is completed? It states in the Infobox “Completed 22 January 2024; 2 days ago” This is confusing. 109.38.134.82 (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can this sentence

“ was done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, Nritya Gopal Das, on 22 January 2024.”

Be changed into a sentence with links

was done by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Chief of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat and Chief of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, Nritya Gopal Das, on 22 January 2024.

Thanks 109.38.134.82 (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ram_Mandir&oldid=1198505774"