Talk:Ram Mandir

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

Bibliography[edit]

  • Bakker, Hans T. (1984). Ayodhya, Part I: The History of Ayodhya from the 7th century BC to the middle of the 18th century. Institute of Indian Studies, University of Groningen. OCLC 769116023.
  • Jain, Meenakshi (2013), Rama and Ayodhya, New Delhi: Aryan Books, ISBN 978-8173054518
  • Jain, Meenakshi (2017), The Battle for Rama, New Delhi: Aryan Books, ISBN 978-81-7305-579-9
  • Kunal, Kishore (2016), Ayodhya Revisited, Prabhat Prakashan, pp. 335–, ISBN 978-81-8430-357-5
  • Layton, R.; Thomas, P. (2003). "Introduction". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. (eds.). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 1–21. ISBN 978-1-134-60497-5.
  • Srivastava, Sushil (1991), The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry, Vistaar Publications, ISBN 978-81-7036-212-8 – via archive.org

About removing repeated and provoking statements in the article[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2024[edit]

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


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)[reply]