Talk:Ram Mandir/Archive 3

Following the last sentence of the last paragraph of the section "2021–present", the broken named reference "BBC" should be replaced with <ref name="BBC">{{cite news|last=Pandey|first=Geeta|title=Ayodhya Ram Mandir: India PM Modi inaugurates Hindu temple on razed Babri mosque site|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68003095|work=BBC News|date=22 January 2024|access-date=22 January 2024|language=en}}</ref>. Bsherr (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above correction, it seems to me that the sentence should be modified. The cited reference contradicts the statement that the temple is completed, instead stating that only the ground floor is complete and the rest will be completed later. Thoughts? --Bsherr (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bsherr Do you have an article which you can cite that confirms completion? By now there should be one. Especially since the goverment had an official opening and the news would have covered that. 41.146.146.251 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, sources contemporaneous with the official opening state that the temple is incomplete despite the consecration ceremony. --Bsherr (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you please remove the honorific prefix 'Lord' as in "Lord Rama" or "Lord Ram" to retain Neutral Poin of View on Wikipedia? Thank you. Natsuikomin (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done per MOS, HONORIFICS and NPOV. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The ramayana is not a story or myth. It is part of Indian history 205.254.168.227 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• It is a theological narrative, and therefore "myth" is a correct word - see Myth. It does not mean "false" as in the other meaning of the word. We cannot treat it as a historical document, in exactly the same way as we do not with the Bible or indeed the Quran. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  The same logic was not applied to the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no proof outside Christian sources about the birthplace of Jesus. Still the Wikipedia article on Jesus do not use the words hypothetical or mythical.

  • Biblical stories of Jesus' birth reveal intriguing clues about his times, National Geographic, 16 December, 2021

  No non-Christian source, however, describes the birth of Jesus. The only texts offering detailed accounts of Jesus’ life are early Christian writings, principally the four Gospels that were regarded as a fixed part of the New Testament by the third century A.D.

  • Jesus, Wikipedia article on Jesus as of 2 February 2024.

  Matthew and Luke each describe Jesus' birth, especially that Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary in Bethlehem in fulfilment of prophecy.

  Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Jesus was almost certainly a real person. Rama is a mythological figure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  It seems you misread my comments. They were about lack of historicity of Jesus's birthplace beyond Christian sources. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  There isn't any equivalence; those two figures are treated very differently by reliable sources, and historians who have no belief in Jesus as a prophet recognize him to be a historical figure. The same isn't true of Rama; a more apt comparison to Jesus might be the Buddha, whose birth is treated similarly. Within Hinduism, Adi Shankara is a comparable figure whose historicity is generally agreed upon but whose biographical information is poorly known. Also: please note that we do not at any point present Jesus's birthplace as a statement of fact, instead attributing it to Christian religious texts that explicitly do so. The Ramayana has things to say about Rama's birthplace, which we mention; it doesn't say anything about the site where this temple has been built. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your point convincing to some extent. However there are still some ancient religions that are practised today such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, etc. This article is about a temple of Rama at a place that is believed by Hindus to be this his birthplace. This claim was contested both by academia and in courts as well. We can add a sentence about that. Else giving undue weight to point out articles related to ancient religions with words such as hypothetical, mythical may be an unwanted bias that Wikipedia cast upon the readers. Is it part of Wikipedia guidelines to remind the readers that ancient religions are inferior, superstituous in nature??? If there is an article on Historicity of Rama then these arguments are perfectly fine. What is wrong in replacing the word mythical/hypothesized with words like popular belief, supposed to be, etc. The next sentence is my personal view. "In the name of countering Hindutva, it seems some people knowingly or unknowingly disrespecting Hinduism which is against the policy of Wikipedia." Coming back to the issue, you mentioned about Jesus. Are there any historical proofs about resurrection of Jesus or his ascension to heaven? Why can't we apply same logic in the Wikipedia article on Jesus and used the word mythical to describe those events? Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  “Why can't we apply same logic in the Wikipedia article on Jesus”? Because we shouldn't discuss other articles here. The article on Jesus could in theory be bad. It might be good. I haven’t read it. It’s irrelevant.

  ”What is wrong in replacing the word mythical/hypothesized with words like popular belief, supposed to be, etc.”? All words that you POV‑pushers suggest are wrong, because they leave a little bit of space for the pious interpretation that Rama is a historical figure. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Of course there aren't any "historical proofs about resurrection of Jesus or his ascension to heaven?" which is why nowhere in Wikipedia should those events be described as anything else but beliefs - see Resurrection of Jesus. Don't forget that the New Testament does not even mention resurrection, only "appearances" of Jesus to those of faith after his death. There aren't (or shouldn't be - there are so many articles that some may have slipped through) any writing in Wikipedia's voice that supernatural events actually happened. The historicity of an actual man called Jesus himself is a completely separate matter, and indeed an entire branch of theologistic history (Historicity of Jesus). Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove the sentence "and also that there is clear evidence that the disputed site was believed by Hindus as the Janmabhoomi (birthsite) of Rama." from Ram Mandir#History.

See Babri_Masjid#Title_cases_verdict. There is no evidence for it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not done for now: this appears to be a controversial request. Feel free to re-activate the template if consensus develops for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Nobody has disputed it so far. See the section on Babri_Masjid#Title_cases_verdict. It is not a controversial edit since it is being made as per consensus across Wikipedia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The language in question was added within the past week by another editor, so I can't see it as uncontroversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Updating my request.Change:

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.^[1]

To:

The Supreme Court in its landmark jugdement concluded that the underlying structure beneath the mosque was not an Islamic structure. However, the court concluded that no evidence was found that a non-Islamic structure was specifically demolished for the construction of the Babri Masjid.^[2]

Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I agree this is in line with all other related Wikipedia articles and the provided source. Firefangledfeathers Kindly implement the recent suggestion above. CharlesWain (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Bsskchaitanya:, any response. A check of the article history suggests you added the clause being considered here for removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Firefangledfeathers, It was me who made that changed. Please give me some time to respond. Thanks for notifying me. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ayodhya verdict: The ASI findings Supreme Court spoke about in its judgment, India Today, 4 April 2022

Reading the "unanimous" judgment on the Ayodhya title suit in a packed courtroom on Saturday, CJI Ranjan Gogoi there is clear evidence that Hindus believe Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. "Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure. The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure," the bench said.

• Judgment Summary: Ayodhya Title Dispute - Supreme Court Observer, (Extract from the official archive of the Supreme Court of India)

Before answering whether the disputed site itself had juristic personality, the Court established that the idol (plaintiff 1 in suit 5 – Shri Ram Virajman) had legal rights. Relying on witness statements and historical travelogues, it recognised that Hindu devotees have continuously believed that the idol is the embodiment of Lord Ram, the resident deity of Ram Janmabhoomi.

• Judgment Summary: Ayodhya Title Dispute - Supreme Court Observer, (Extract from the official archive of the Supreme Court of India)

Inner Courtyard

On the other hand, it held that the inner courtyard was disputed and that neither party had succeeded in demonstrating exclusive possession. It held that while the inner courtyard contained the mosque, the Sunni Waqf Board had failed to establish that it had been dedicated as waqf by continuous usage (‘waqf by user’). Further, while it held that namaz never permanently ceased between 1857 and 1949, on the preponderance of probabilities, there was evidence to show Hindus asserted the right to pray in the central dome of the mosque. It noted that prior to 1857, evidence suggested Hindus had worshipped in the inner courtyard. Specifically, it pointed to the admission by Moazzin of the Mosque in 1858 that previously, the symbol of Janmasthan had been inside the disputed site for hundreds of years and the Hindus performed puja inside the three-domed structure (page 885). Thus, the Court found that prior to 1856-7, there was no restriction on worship for Hindus in the precincts of the inner courtyard (page 891).

After an evaluation of the evidence adduced by both parties, Court held that “the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims”. It then awarded the title to the entire site to the deity.

(Note: The inner courtyard implies the Babri Masjid and its immediate surroundings.)

• Ayodhya verdict: Six key takeaways from the 1045-page Supreme Court judgment, The News Minute, 9 November 2019.

The Supreme Court judgment was followed by a 116-page addendum over whether the disputed structure is the holy birthplace of Lord Ram as per the faith, belief and trust of the Hindus.

The addendum mentions that in the period prior to 1528 AD, “there was sufficient religious texts, which led the Hindus to believe the present site of Ram Janma Bhumi as the birthplace of Lord Ram".

The addendum concludes with:

“Faith and belief of the Hindus as depicted by the evidence on record clearly establish that the Hindus belief that at the birth place of Lord Ram, the Mosque was constructed and three-dome structure is the birth place of Lord Ram. The fact that Hindus were by constructing iron wall, dividing mosque premises, kept outside the three-dome structure cannot be said to alter their faith and belief regarding the birth place of Lord Ram. The worship on the Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard was symbolic worship of Lord Ram who was believed to be born in the premises,” the Supreme Court noted in its addendum to the judgment.

Firefangledfeathers Please go through the above references while considering deletion of the edit made by me.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Your personal analysis is irrelevant. Many temples are in ruins for centuries thus it is easily possible to create a monument over it without destroying anything. Scroll is reliable source for this information. Also see these sources which reported the same:[8][9][10] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree on not using Scroll as an authoritative source. The article in question specifically has a click-bait title and is a heavily personal opinion and not reflective of SC commentary. Use raw text of the ruling instead https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/36350/36350_2010_1_1502_18205_Judgement_09-Nov-2019.pdf Lycanlucia (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Firefangledfeathers: The above IP sock has been blocked and Lycanlucia (telling us to use primary source) is an SPA. Can you implement the edit? Its been a week. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I can not, as it does not appear there is consensus for the change. You could try and reach some compromise with Bssk, wait for more input from others, or seek more dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree with the suggestion by Firefangledfeathers and it would be better to have input from more editors. The sources provided by me above seem to confirm that the Supreme court agreed that there is clear evidence that Hindus believed that area to be birthplace of Rama. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• It seems Abhishek0831996 is not aware that the page is no longer fully protected. I have implemented the edit. NavjotSR (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

NavjotSR Still consensus has not been reached about that edit. Please go through the valid sources provided by me above. It is better to reach a consensus and let the edit be done with a nod by administrators. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• the spiritual birthplace of Rama
• the location described as the birthplace of Rama in ancient Hindu literature
• the birthplace of Rama in Hinduism

But feel free to add further suggestions. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Where how exactly is the site of Ram Mandir the location described as the birthplace of Rama in ancient Hindu literature? The Ramayana makes no reference to a specific location of Rama's birth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Valmiki Ramayana is the primary source.

Furthermore numerous secondary sources discuss the location in a similar manner, for example:

"The Ram Mandir, a temple being built on the spot in the city of Ayodhya believed to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram — also transcribed as Rama — is pivotal to the story and evolution of post-independence India."

https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/what-the-ram-mandirs-consecration-means-for-hindus/

Also see the following for a citation on "Hindu literature":

"The faith and belief of Hindus that the land in Ayodhya, where the Babri Masjid once stood, is the birthplace of Lord Ram was based on scriptures and sacred religious books, including 'Valmiki Ramayana' and 'Skanda Purana', and it cannot be held as "groundless", the Supreme Court said on Saturday."

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/hindus-faith-in-lord-ram-s-birthplace-based-on-valmiki-ramayana-skanda-purana-says-sc-119110901379_1.html CollationoftheWilling (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@CollationoftheWilling @Bsskchaitanya, I write to both of you, because the previous section (Remove the word "mythical" From the introduction statement) and this section are about the same thing: the first beginning of a case of civil POV (point of view) pushing. Your point of view that you want to push is to water down the description that the birth of Rama is a myth, a religious belief about something that didn’t happen. Stop now. You are wasting your time and other people’s time. The first sentences of the article don’t need editing.

There is one line of reasoning that is pointless in all discussions: “What about?” Stop asking “What about Jesus and Mohammed?” The only relevant discussion here is this: Is the article Ram Mandir correct? I would prefer if the resurrection of Jesus were called “the resurrection myth”, but the fact that those words are not used in Wikipedia has no bearing on the editing of Ram Mandir.

I have the same message for the contributors who don’t log in: Stop waisting time. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is article on a temple and not on historicity of Rama. This seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. The specific location (inner courtyard of Babri masjid) being believed by Hindus as birthplace of Rama was observed by European visitors during middle ages and even Supreme court of India accepted that point. Whether right or wrong is a Hindu belief. To maintain WP:NPOV, the words mythical may be replaced with 'believed to be' or 'supposed to be'. Religion itself is set of beliefs, however convinving or ridiculuous they may be to a rational mind. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

1. The word "myth" is not actually used on the Ramayana article, probably because it is controversial.

2. It conveys incorrectly that the location is mythical, whereas it is the telling of the story that is mythical. The majority of the locations in Hindu "mythology" exist in real life, and it is entirely likely that many of the characters are also based in real life even if the portrayal and events are questionable.

I also thought about using words such as "legendary" (used to describe the Robin Hood stuff).

You need to keep in mind that this topic heavily related to a dispute with Muslims, so everyone should take care not to privilege the Muslims unfairly by being more "politically correct" with them but not with the Hindu side.

If you look at the opening paragraph of the myth article:

"Myth is a genre of folklore or theology consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. For folklorists, historians, philosophers or theologians this is very different from the use of "myth" which simply meaning something that is not true. Instead, the truth value of a myth is not a defining criterion."

While I accept the first definition without contest, the widespread use of the second definition is objectable. Not just because the Muslim side is usually about to get more politically correct words used, but also because the idea that these stories are 100% false is wrong, in many cases these "myths" are build up from oral tradition originating from a real event - such as myths about a "great flood" found throughout the world likely originating from a tsunami.

Looking at how other articles on Hinduism are worded in Wikipedia, something akin to the following might be the best sentence construct:

"The temple is the location given in ancient and modern Hindu literature as the birthplace of Rama". CollationoftheWilling (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• I find former lead (only first paragraph) to be much better. [11] NavjotSR (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  NavjotSR The first paragraph of the version shareed by you seems better from an NPOV perspective. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see if any consensus was held to change that part of the lead in the first place. I have restored it now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose merging Consecration of the Ram Mandir into Ram Mandir. I think the content in Consecration of the Ram Mandir can easily be explained in the context of Ram Mandir, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Ram Mandir.PepperBeast (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Over the same reasons I stated at Talk:Ram_Mandir/Archive_3#Proposed_merge_of_Ram Mandir Prana Pratishtha into Ram Mandir. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support --Æo (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and as stated in the previous merge proposal, it can be used for article expansion. Standalone article is not justified when it can be easily merged to the parent article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Enough details to be a standalone article, Notable event, enough citations.. TheProEditor11 (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The event achieved significant coverage in media and got huge attention by Hindus all over the world. There is much scope to develop the article on consecration. So, it is better to wait for some time before taking any merger decision right now. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a significant enough moment to deserve a standalone article. The article isn't some useless stub, either. There are plenty of sources that could be used to expand it. Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have moved these comments back to their own section after they seemed to be accidentally moved into the RFC above. The assignment for this page seems to have been canceled. Perception312 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Kindly remove word mythical.

it's historical not mythical please do correction as early as possible 103.114.211.249 (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

First sentence: Ram Mandir is under construction to be changed to is constricted 2600:8800:17A4:CE00:8119:1DE6:9A60:B334 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note an existing BBC reference from last month says only the ground floor is complete. Jamedeus (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The inauguration date has been mentioned as an important milestone in multiple High quality sources that have reported on Ram temple. Also the inaguration event was widely reported in top newspapers across the world, and therefore is of Wiki significance to be included in the lede. The language also needs to conform to widely reported top sources as below:

The temple was inaugurated (url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68003095) on 22 January 2024 after a "prana pratishtha" (consecration) ceremony.

(url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/world/asia/india-ram-temple-ayodhya.html) (url=https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-counts-down-opening-grand-ram-temple-ayodhya-2024-01-22)

Thanks RogerYg (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be removed as per WP:UNDUE

None the top published News articles on Ram Mandir consider "partially constructed" as an important detail to be mentioned in their lede, therefore Wiki page also must not give UNDUE significance to "partially constructed" to include it in the lede first sentence.

Hi Dharmadhyaksha, I appreciate your edit to "partially constructed", which is better than "under construction," but it's not needed in the lede as per WP:RS, WP:Notability & WP:UNDUE. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

^{[1] [2] [3]} RogerYg (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So if you want to remove "partially constructed" do you want to go back to the old wording of "under construction"? Or do you want to delete it completely? And if deleted, how do you want to handle the "under construction" part in the infobox as well as various paragraphs later on in the article that talk about how the temple is not really fully constructed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

What qualifiers should be used in the second sentence of the lead paragraph (which discusses the temple's relation to Ram Janmabhoomi)? one or both options can be selected:

• A. Many Hindus believe/according to Hindu beliefs, etc.
• B. "the mythical birthplace of Rama" or alternatives, such as reputed, alleged, supposed etc.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• A and B I definitely think there is a need to use qualifiers regarding this topic due to the fact this is religious belief regarding a figure largely regarded to be mythological by most scholars. I think "mythical" is perhaps not the best word, but I would support using some kind of qualifier like supposed or reputed before indicate that this is belief and not some kind of expert consensus, but I would oppose "hypothetical" as this makes it sounds like some sort of rational hypothesis grounded in historical fact rather than a religious belief. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• B per MOS:WEASEL. Rather than providing a weasel term, I think it will be better to provide a clearer and accurate sentence such as mythical/hypothetical/reputed term. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• B and use the word "hypothetical". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• A, since the belief is clearly attributed to Hindus by one of the two sources cited for the sentence (the other simply referring to the location as Rama's birthplace). Perception312 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• B with the word "hypothetical". Ratnahastin (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• A Ayodhya being Rama's birthplace is Hindu belief. Attribution of the belief to Hindus is important in the sentence, as it may not be a belief outside Hinduism or Indians in general. Merely saying it is "hypothetical" does not explicitly restrict the hypothesis to Hindu belief.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• A this being Rama's birthplace is Hindu belief per Redtigerxyz. Like Hemiauchenia, I think that "hypothetical" is wrong and unhelpful, not only does it fail to put the belief into its Hindu context, it also makes it sounds like some sort of rational hypothesis grounded in historical fact. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• A because this argument is solely based on beliefs of Hindus since many centuries. The same was attested by neutral visitors to Ayodhya during medieval ages. There were two more important temples to Hindus in Ayodhya, namely, Swargadwar (Gateway to heaven) and Treta-ka-Thakur (Lord of [Treta yuga]). Those were also converted to mosques. The point is that the location of Janmasthan, Swargadwar and Treta-ka-Thakur are held with significance by Hindus as per their belief system. Therefore, it is better to avoid terms like hypothetical/mythical as this is an article on Ram mandir at Ayodhya to commemorate his birth at his Janmasthan and NOT on historicity of Rama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsskchaitanya (talk • contribs)
• A and B in a sense. The exact wording right now is "Many Hindus believe that it is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the mythical birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism.", and this appears to be correct and appropriate. This is a religious-faith belief, it is not shared by all Hindus, Ram Janmabhoomi is mythical, and the identification of it with Ram Mandi is hypothetical, but that is already indicated by the entire sentence construction. If "Many Hindus" were removed (and it is not weasel wording but a description of a fact that it's a wide but not universal Hindu belief), then it might need to be made clearer that it's a hypothetical identification, but that just leads us back to weasel: whose hypothesis? The fix to the borderline-weasel problem would be to more narrowly identify the "many Hindus" as to some particular sect(s) or whatever. Someone with more subject-matter knowledge would have to figure out how to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option - A According to Wikipedia's policy WP:RNPOV, it recommends utilizing religion's sacred texts as primary sources and relying on modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources. In the context of the belief in Hindu sacred texts (Ramayana etc.) asserting that Ram was born at a particular location and the contemporary archaeological survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) suggesting the existence of the Ram Mandir in medieval times, it is advisable to adhere to Option A. - SpunkyGeek (talk)
• Both, per SMcCandlish above. The belief is a Hindu belief, it's not universal, and it's about a figure/deity from mythology, not history. All those qualifiers are non-controversially accepted by scholars; omitting any of them would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• C Proposing alternative rather than accepting such nuisance option. Shree Raamjanmabhumi is birth place of Great king Ram revered by billions for his great doings and democratical and people's kingdom. Leaving the place of Pavitra bhoomi ,just a belief or hypothetical concept is such a nuisance. Actually Babri masjid was illegally occupied in the place of the birth place of Ram. There is no concrete evidence that it was older but there many concrete and true evidences and as seen by our ancestors, the birth place of Ram is the where now temple has been.
• Both - as incorporated in the present sentence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• C: Proposing option C as "It is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, which many Hindus believe to be the birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice that that you have cited mention of Adi Sankara's visit to Ayodhya has no due weight while reverting an edit made by me in that article. However, I would like to bring to your notice that Adi Sankara holds high importance in the history of Hinduism and its revival. He is credited with identification of many teertha kshetras such as Jyotirlingas, setting up Dasanami sampradaya, writing commentaries on many important Hindu works, propagating Advaita etc. He visited many holyplaces across India (and Pakistan). From a scholarly perspective it can indicate for existence of such site in that area and how Ayodhya was revered by Hindus from other parts of India. For example, he visited Draksharama (nearby my hometown) which indicates the ancient Siva temple there was prominent even during 8th century. We can notice inscriptions by Cholas in that temple. However, this temple being in South survived the vicissitudes of time unlike the temples in other parts of India which suffered from iconoclasm and sometimes complete destruction. Therefore, information that Adi Sankara visited Ayodhya way back in 8th century indicates it was an important pilgrimage site even during that era. In that section of the article, my intention was to provide information about Rama's significance and subsequent importance of Ayodhya as a pilgrimage site owing to its relation with Rama's life events. So, it is my request to consider your reversion. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you and have a nice day. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bsskchaitanya You have to provide those scholarly perspectives, without which one cannot see why the content is WP:DUE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you DaxServer for reconsidering the status of revert. Here are some references about Adi Sankara's visit to Ayodhya.

According with some of the hagiographic accounts of Śaṅkara's travels (see below), the Nambūdiris claim that Śaṅkara left Kedārnāth, where he had set up a śiva-liṅgam, and returned to Srisailam via Ayodhyā, Gayā and Pūri.^[1] [sic]

Life and works of Sankara is known to scholars only through Hagiograhies on him which goes by name Śaṅkara (Dig) Vijaya (lit. Omnidirectional Victory of Sankara). I can add subsequent ones soon. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Two problems. There is no mention of a temple here. Nor is there any significant activity done at Ayodhya. (So it won't belong even on the Ayodhya page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is not about Adi Sankara visiting any temple but on Ayodhya being a pilgrimage site in 8th century CE. The above pilgrimage sites mentioned are very popular among Hindus since old ages. Sankara has visited all seven scared cities during his foot journey. I am bit busy in personal life and in due course of time I will gather more information to make changes in Ayodhya, Draksharama and Sankara pages as well. -- Bsskchaitanya (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer Here are few more references from different authors who mentioned the same about Sankara's visit to Ayodhya.

Sankara's visit to Gaya (Bihar) after his halt at Ayodhya is noted by Anantanandagiri in Chapter 55 of his biography. The further yatra to Gangasagar, where by the holy Ganga and its numerous branches enter the sea and his bath at the place are mentioned in the same chapter.^[2] [sic]

Having set up a Sivalingam at Kedárnath, he returned by way of Ayódhya, Gaya and Jagannáth to Sri Saila.^[3] [sic]

In the course of his wanderings he visited the greater part of India, and eventually went as far as mount Kailása. He set up a linga at Kedára and returned by way of Ayodhya, Gaya and Jagannáth to Srisaila, where he encountered Bhaṭṭáchárya (that is, Kumárila),... ^[4] [sic]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsskchaitanya (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bsskchaitanya: What did he do in Ayodhya during his halt, or something relevant to this temple site article or perhaps Ram Janmabhoomi, apart from passing thru Ayodhya? If the halt or the passage route is WP:DUE, it will certainly belong in Adi Shankara article. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

All the places visited/passed by Sankara were of religious significance to Astika Hindus, i.e. they are Kshetras. Therefore, in this Ram mandir page, the section about significance of Rama and Ayodhya can have a sentence about Sankara passing by Ayodhya during his all-India tour. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide sources? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

+ 1 to @Bsskchaitanya BlackOrchidd (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Bsskchaitanya, do you realize what hagiography means? Those "biographies" are entirely fictional, and have no value a sources with regard to the 8th century, or the life of Adi Shankara. At best, they reflect beliefs and concerns of the 15th-17th century, and were created and used to support religious and political claims - exactly like you are doing now. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The text cited by @Bsskchaitanya mentions a visit to Ayodhya, but does not refer a visit to the Rama Mandir per se. This is Wikipedia:UNDUE. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua You mean Adi Sankara was fictional or his biographies? Can you provide those "other" reliable sources that gave scholars information about life and works of Adi Sankara? Every religious book or related texts have been created to support religious claims but that does not mean all religions have to be banned. Please focus on the topic rather than making personal accusations. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

His biographies. There are no reliable sources about his life; see Adi Shankara#Digvijaya - "The conquests of Shankara". Regarding his works, most works attributed to him are not written/composed by him; seeAdi Shankara#Works. Regarding "accusations": I'm not saying you do this intentionally; on the contrary, probably. But that shows precisely the power of texts like these: they are so compelling, that people take them as factional accounts, instead of fictional. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your argument. But, dont you think it applies to most of religious figures in the Past. There are no reliable biograhies about life of Jesus outside Christian sources. Even the work by Josephus has vague references and some even doubt that the work got tampered. What you said is true that Adi Sankara is so influential and many works till date get instant value (and reverence) among Hindus if his name gets associated with them. Even the life of Basava, a Lingayat saint and a great social reformer during middle ages was based on hagiographies like Basava Purana of Palkuriki Somanatha. Perhaps the way how history is narrated and documented is different in oriental and occidental cultures. If it is not WP:UNDUE then atleast we may mention that 'as per so and so hagiography it was said that Sankara visited Ayodhya'. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It is. Scholars agree on only three facts of Jesus' life: he existed, he was baptized, ad he was crucified. That's based om texts written a few decades after his death. Shankara's hagiographies, on the other hand, were composed ca. 600 years after his death; it's completely irrelevan to the Ram Mandir that one of those hagiographies states, in passing, that Shankara visited Ayodhya - even the more when even at the time they were composed Ayodhya may not have been a place of pilgrimage yet. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Except work by Flavius Josephus there is no credible information about Jesus that documented events of 1 CE era. Even then, is there any archeological or historical evidence that Jesus flew was indeed son of Jewish God? There is next to none. So can we then say Jesus as 'mythical' Son of a 'mythical' God of Jews?. From scholarly point of view it may be apt but in an Encyclopaedia article such strict scrutiny may not be necessary.

Regarding Sankara's passage via Ayodhya I doubt your claim that Ayodhya may not be a pilgrimage site yet. A non-Hindu may not even understand the significance of of kshetras such as Kedarnath, Gaya, Puri, Srisailam among Astika Hindus. There is plethora of sources; both primary and secondary that mention about these pilgrimage sites. As I replied earlier to DaxServer, I will try to gather more information about Sankara's visit to Ayodhya. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are we talking about Jesus' article on this talk page? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 11:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@DaxServer To establish analogy in the arguments BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Under the Religion section there can be a row for Festivals like in articles of other temples and add Holi there. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/holi-ram-mandir-ayodhya-rangotsav-at-ram-mandir-devotees-celebrate-holi-at-ayodhya-temple-5306999 MultyMetaverses (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Add few texts at the end: Original: "The site of the temple is the subject of communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India, as it is the former location of the Babri Masjid mosque, which was built between 1528 and 1529. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.[11][12][13]" Change: "The site of the temple is the subject of communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India, as it is the former location of the Babri Masjid mosque, which was built between 1528 and 1529. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992 by a mob organized by Vajpayee, LK Advani, Narendra Modi.[11][12][13]"

Reference: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/711412924/nearly-27-years-after-hindu-mob-destroyed-a-mosque-the-scars-in-india-remain-dee Sirole123 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Rejected per WP:UNDUE Undue controversial details to be avoided in lead, Also violates WP:BLP of living persons, who have been cleared of such allegations in the courts. Also note WP:NOT NEWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerYg (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Important information widely reported in the WP:RS sources on Visitor numbers need to added.

https://www.businesstoday.in/markets/top-story/story/rs-85000-cr-makeover-ram-temple-at-ayodhya-could-attract-over-50-million-tourists-per-year-says-jefferies-414346-2024-01-22 Rs 85,000-cr makeover': Ram temple at Ayodhya could attract over 50 million tourists per year, says Jefferies Jan 22, 2024

Global brokerage firm Jefferies said in a report that the Ram temple at Ayodhya could lead to "unlocking of India's tourism potential" by attracting over 50 million tourists a year.

"The grand opening of the Ram temple at Ayodhya by PM Modi on Jan 22nd, is a big religious event. It also comes with a large economic impact as India gets a new tourist spot which could attract over 50 million tourists per year.

https://www.cnbctv18.com/travel/culture/ayodhya-ram-temple-50-million-visitors-expected-each-year-surpassing-tirupati-mecca-and-vatican-18880731.htm January 24, 2024 Ayodhya's Ram Temple may draw 50 million visitors annually, to surpass Tirupati, Mecca, and Vatican

With an expected 50 million visitors per year, the Ram Mandir is likely to become one of the top religious pilgrimage sites of the world.

Also, the 10 billion reported economic development plan The temple construction has been accompanied by a $10 billion transformation plan for Ayodhya, "encompassing a new airport, revamped railway station," and township development," stimulating various economic activities. https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhyas-over-10bn-revamp-could-generate-around-3bn-in-tax-revenue-for-up-682522

RogerYg (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

All these are predictions (WP:CRYSTALBALL). I'd say wait for an year when the annual reports come with specific and exact data. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yes, we can wait for a year till actual annual data comes. I have removed the projected annual numbers from the lead accordingly.

We do have some exact numbers that can be added instead.

"After the opening of the Ram Temple to the public on Jan 23, 2024, Ayodhya has welcomed 2.4 million visitors in just 12 days."

https://travel.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/ministry/ayodhya-records-2-4-mn-visitors-in-12-days-govt-eyeing-historic-site-development-schemes-modi/107427042

As these are exact numbers, I have added them accordingly. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but ET is not reliable per WP:TOI. If you could get more cites describing the same values, we can consider. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, we also have cites from WP:Reliable sources. We can mention those numbers for better reliability

WP:INDIANEXP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Indian_Express

1. Five lakh visitors and counting: On Day 1 after Ayodhya Ram Temple inauguration, a rush for ‘first darshan’ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ayodhya-ram-mandir-opens-public-devotees-9123100/
2. "A little over a month since the inauguration of the Ram temple.. the temple is witnessing an average of 1-to-1.5 lakh pilgrims on a daily basis" https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ayodhya-ram-temple-visit-guidelines-what-to-carry-aarti-timings-9211777/

Thanks for helping improve the article. RogerYg (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I felt sorry for not discussing before editing in the article. But my acts were totally justified as the same paragraphs have been copied and pasted in the article multiple times with same citations. The dispute and the judicial judgement related to Ayodhya Ram Mandir is already there in History section in serial manner from medieval to modern day but it has been intentionally copy pasted this portion of history in the second paragraph and in the first paragraph of history section. As far as Ram is concerned Hindus believe him as a historical figure in Indian history. Ayodhya is not a mythical place but a historical place as per the epic Valmiki Ramayana. There are independent articles for the Ayodhya dispute, and other such stuffs. This article is about the Mandir (Hindu temple). Populating it with unwarranted topics only making it lenthy and lethargic to read. Prabhu Prasad Tripathy (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, they are not justified. We do not WP:CENSOR info that we WP:DONTLIKEIT. Hindus may believe Ram is a historical figure, but this is an encyclopedia, not an faith-based free hosting website. "Unwarranted" is in the eye of the beholder; a lot of people think that the Ram Mandir is a disgrace, a token of Hindu intolerance. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

So you mean copy pasting the same lines with same citations in multiple section of article is justified? There are already pages which dedicated for dispute matter. Please do review the article. And by the way Hindus are quite tolerant and hospitable. Prabhu Prasad Tripathy (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide examples. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole paragraph after the intro section starting with "The site of the temple has been the subject of communal tensions" in the article has been copied with the same citations in the first paragraph of History section where as in the history section there was already these incidents mentioned from medieval period to modern time serially. Prabhu Prasad Tripathy (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In the same paragraph it mentions,"The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949". It's factually wrong. The idols of Rama and his siblings were placed there. There was no idol of Sita there. Prabhu Prasad Tripathy (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The intro to the History-section is quite long indeed, but that is no excuse to remove it altogether, even less to remove all info regarding the controversies from the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, per MOS:LEAD it should provide a "summary of [the article's] most important contents", which definitely includes the controversy over its location and history. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Dew1609 (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The history is half cooked and information missing on the Sri Ram temple. There was a proof of existance of temple 500 years back. but teh history start as Bari masjid demolotion will create unnecessory conroversy and will deep rooted eneymity betwen community. for the good sense and huminy in consideration appreciate if the demolition part removed.

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Indic transliteration, the Hindi text that has to be transliterated to Latin alphabet has to be done in ISO 15919 and not Hinglish. Since the page has extended protection and I am not eligible to edit it yet, I request someone who has the privelege to make the following changes (left ones are the current ones, right ones are the ones that should be implemented):

1. Mandir wahi banayenge - Maṁdira vahīṁ banāēm̐gē
2. Saugandh Ram ki Khat-e hain; Hum Mandir Wahin Banayegein - Saugaṁdha Rāma kī khātē haiṁ, hama maṁdira vahīṁ banāēm̐gē
3. Jaha Ram Ka Janma Hua Tha, Hum Mandir Wahi Banayenge - Jahām̐ Rāma kā janma huā thā, hama maṁdira vahīṁ banāēm̐gē
4. Ram Lalla Hum Aayenge; Mandir Wahi Banayenge - Rāmā lallā hama āēm̐gē, maṁdira vahīṁ banāēm̐gē
5. Pehle mandir, fir sarkaar - pahalē maṁdira, phira sarakāra
6. singhdwar - siṁhadvāra
7. Shilanyas - Śilānyāsa
8. bhumi pujan - bhūmi pūjana
9. prana pratishtha - prāṇa pratiṣṭhā
10. murtis - mūrtis
11. Ramarchan Puja - Rāmacaraṇa pūjā

Pur 0 0 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe these phrases were "transliterations" of Hindi text. They were written as spelt in the English language sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

But still, we should change them. The sources don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines, but we have to because, well, we are on Wikipedia. Same reason why we change Devanagari sources to ISO 15919. Just copy paste the changes I have marked here. Pur 0 0 (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Indian English transliterates these as they are. Wikipedia:USEENGLISH applies here. IAST or ISO is not required Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt from the Wikipedia:USEENGLISH article:

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g., Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, if there is a common English form of the name, this is preferred over a systematically transliterated name; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek, even though those are unsystematic. For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization and Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional)

So 1-5 will still be transliterated, whereas 6-11 will not. Pur 0 0 (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)