Talk:Ram Mandir

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ram Mandir article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 3 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ram Mandir. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ram Mandir at the Reference desk.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Ram Mandir, Ayodhya → Ram Mandir: Moved, 10 September 2021, Talk:Ram Mandir/Archive 1#Requested move 10 September 2021
Ram Mandir → Rama Temple, Ayodhya: Not moved, 25 January 2024, Talk:Ram Mandir/Archive 3#Requested move 25 January 2024

A news item involving Ram Mandir was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:

Wikipedia

India: Uttar Pradesh High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article was last assessed in August 2020.

Hinduism High‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Asia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Historic sites Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

January 21 to 27, 2024

Bibliography

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

Pilgrimage and Tourism: Teerth Sthal and Bhog Sthal

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Ram Mandir. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

The Sankaracharya of Puri Math mentioned that “...pilgrimages are now being turned into centers of tourism in the name of development which means that Teerth Sthals are being turned into Bhog Sthals...”^[1]. The Sankaracharya of Jyotir Math mentioned that "...When cow slaughter ends in the country, i will visit Ayodhya's Ram Mandir, celebrating with enthusiasm..."^[2]. PeoLike (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Jan/05/puri-seer-says-wont-visit-ayodhya-says-rituals-must-conform-to-shastras-2648076.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/sringeri-mutt-requests-people-to-disregard-false-propaganda-about-pran-pratishtha-at-ram-temple20240112110536/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Thankyou Macaddct1984, for the reply.

The below are the options.

1. The earlier mentioned content can be added under a header or sub-header "Pilgrimage and Tourism: Teerth Sthal and Bhog Sthal". 2. The content may be added under the article section "In popular culture".

Regarding the reliability of sources cited for the above content: The first source is 'New Indian Express', one of the prominent dailies in India, with publication from 20+ locations. The second source is ANI, which is one of the three major news agencies in India. I was unable to find alternate sources.

This edit request is for adding new content. The existing text content need not be deleted/ edited/ modified to add the suggested content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeoLike (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in second sentence

This seems to be a continious issue here on this page, so i probably won't be the first one to bring this up but the phrase "Many Hindus believe that it is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the mythical birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism.""and the use of a weasel word like mythical falls in bad taste. @Sohom Datta mentioned this wording was determined by consensus, however it seems like there never really was consensus to change it to Mythical, the last discussion i could find about this was in archive 3, which doesn't even seem resolved. Besides that the sources mentioned don't phrase it like that at all with one of the sources phrasing it like this " a grand temple to the Hindu god Lord Ram on a site believed to be his birthplace". Before the use of mythical the mainly agreed upon term was hypothetical, which in itself didn't even have full consensus and marked many discussions like the Use of "hypothesized" and Change first EDIT: second sentence; this is a non‑controversial suggestion. The first one again doesn't seem resolved so how does Mythical have any consensus ? Suggested changes like putting "believed" could work although that didn't last long. Putting hypothesized back could be a option or my own suggestion which is replacing it with "presumed" ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythical" is not a weasel word when we are literally dealing with a subject that has it's roots in Indian mythology. Regarding the revert, given that there has been multiple discussions about this wording and there hasn't been any significant impetus to change/remove it, I assumed there was consensus for the wording itself. Sohom (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the subject where discussing is a place of worship, which is centered around a specific deity/person whose birthplace or existence only seems to be disputed on this page. Based on the edit history it also seems only one or a few people actually changed it to mythical without general consensus. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how "mythical" is a weasel-word; it has a clearly defined, scholarly meaning. Calling this "bad taste" is misplaced. "Believed" implies an historical fact, which is clearly not the case. "Hypothesized" is even worse. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!

Scholarly meaning in this context based on what ? I still don't see any of the sources mention the word mythical as mentioned above. "Believed" doesn't imply a fact at all it refers to the followers of this specific place of worship and the audience of this article. I can see that "Hypothesized" isn't ideal but that had atleast actual consensus, based on past discussions mentioned in the archives "mythical" didn't. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about what you mean wrt to "general consensus" or "actual consensus", there have been three discussions about this exact phrasing where multiple editors participated (in archive 2 and 3) and while other wordings have been proposed, there has been no proposals that have gained impetus to be implemented. Sohom (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what i mean no where in those discussions did someone propose to implement "mythical" and gained enough consensus, someone just did it and kept reverting other edits proposed. After that people where discussing it. Before this the general consensus was "hypothesized" ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL:

Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.

Myth:

Myth is a genre of folklore consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society. For scholars, this is very different from the vernacular usage of the term "myth" that refers to a belief that is not true. Instead, the veracity of a myth is not a defining criterion.

"Mythological birthplace": see Google Books ram +"mythological birthplace"
Hypothesis:

A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

Obviously, "mythological birthplace" is clear and sourcaeble, whereas "hypothetical" is vague and ambiguous. At best, the sentence could be changed into "Many Hindus believe that it is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Rama." Stylistically, two times "believe" is one time too much, but maybe there are alternatives at hand?

Regarding this revert, which removed the link to Myth witht the statement "unnecessary," WP:LINK says

Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole [...] Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand.

Obviously, such an "instant pathway" to "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand" is the opposite of unnecessay here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wheter it is a weasel word or not doesn't really matter for me you seem to keep focusing on that part, maybe that is my fault, I should have worded it better, I still stand by it being in bad taste.

Your explanation of myth also doesn't seem important here agian the subject matter here is a place of worship and to phrase a sentence like that just seems unnecessary. The google books mythological birth thing isn't sourcable since most of the books mentioned aren't even verifiable and mainly written by people who oppose hindu nationalism, the sources that are in the article are mainly recent news articles that don't phrase it like that at all. I doubt you even would find it phrased like that in a recent verifiable news source.

I do think changing it "believed by Hindus" would be better although that has been done in the past and resulted in edit wars. I do think this or replacing "mythological" with "presumed" would be the best choice if you and other editors agree with that ?

Regarding the revert, I indeed thought it was unneccesary to all of a sudden add a hyperlink to something that is now being discussed on the talkpage. Sorry if that came over like that.

I Just would like to actually come to an consensus ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your futher explanations. I think that "presumed" also misses the religious connotations; "myth" best captures the power of religious narratives, which can even drive people to demolish the sacred places of other people. Otherwise, the best alternative for keeping "mythologocal" would be to just remove it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't object to me removing it then ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know yet, but let me ponder over it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as long as you get back to it ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Jan/05/puri-seer-says-wont-visit-ayodhya-says-rituals-must-conform-to-shastras-2648076.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] ttps://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/sringeri-mutt-requests-people-to-disregard-false-propaganda-about-pran-pratishtha-at-ram-temple20240112110536/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]