This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an extremely important article that underlies the Babri Masjid demolition and Ram Temple, a watershed event in recent history. I came here to find the evidence presented on all sides of whether or not there was a temple demolished and the Babri Masjid was built. It has only a single image. What were the archeological finds? Can I see them? The images presented in the court cases?
In general, there are little to no images related to the Babri Masjid and Ram Mandir controversy. I am putting image requests across several articles, if you can help.
-- NittyG ( talk) 05:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is there no image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raguks ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand reference number 16. How do I verify the claims made by it? Wouldn't it be better to remove those statements that are referenced by it? Shashi 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This article stinks. It seems to be espousing the 'my people get this thing because we were here first' mentality that is extensively used by people who failed at diplomacy. It needs to be revamped completely. Sukiari ( talk) 06:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
@ BodBeral:, you are edit warring here [1]. As explained in my revert this source does not appear to be a reliable source as per WP:HISTRS. Please explain your reasons for including it here. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned in the last paragraph of the article, the archaeological findings are no longer disputed since the Supreme Court of India has since evaluated all the evidence so far and made a judgement. The article requires revisions based on these results. Cwarrior ( talk) 15:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
[2] has good layman summary of the evidences considered by the Supreme Court. Cwarrior ( talk) 02:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Disputed content:
On objections raised with regards to ASIs various scientific claims by the Muslim parties, the Supreme Court observed, the contesting parties could have raised it before the Allahabad High Court as there were legal remedies available for the same. [1] The apex court of India also commented that the ASI report which was submitted on behalf of the Allahabad High Court was not an "ordinary opinion". [2] At the same time, on The Historians report to the Nation authored by Aligrah historians and presented as an evidence, the court observed : "At the highest, this report can be taken as an opinion." [3]
References
- ^ "Ayodhya dispute: Muslim parties in SC retract statement on Ram Chabutra - India News". Retrieved 2020-08-08.
- ^ "Ayodhya case: SC says ASI report not an ordinary opinion; inferences drawn by cultivated minds - The Economic Times". Retrieved 2020-08-08.
- ^ "Historians' report on Babri mosque mere 'opinion': SC | India News - Times of India". Retrieved 2020-08-08.
Kautilya3 Hello, you have reverted my edits in the section "Court verdict after analysis of ASI report" with edit summary - "these are superficial comments that add no value ot this page, which should be about the archaeology". The edits were clearly discussing the Courts analysis on the ASI report and well cited. Iam not sure how you see them as "superficial" and not worth a mention in the section discussing courts verdict? Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 12:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
A whole section is dedicated on "Controversy regarding the archaeological findings" to rebut the findings of an "High Court" appointed and monitored ASI excavation. Based on which the Courts (among many other evidences) relied and made a Judgement, for which again a dedicated sub-section named: "Court verdict after analysis of ASI report" is included in the article. But, according to you, the senior editors, the comments made by the Court with respect to the questions raised by the litigants in the "Controversy regarding..." section is not relevant to be added in the relevant section is bit amusing. However, I seek your help in finding the appropriate context and space to add the content in the article about the case. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Joshua Jonathan, I am intending to revert this edit of yours, which is said to have copied content from the B. B. Lal page. I find it full of polemics and innuendo and short on substance. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Brian Hole writes
here: "I am researching the role of heritage in defining identity in India, from the perspectives of the nation state and of minority groups.
"
So you would think, "brilliant, here is somebody who knows archaeology and he is examining identity politics". But, as far as Ayodhya is concerned, I don't see him having done any new investigation other than what has already been published in various places. ( UCL thesis). For example, B. B. Lal had said repeatedly that his funding was cut off and he could't complete the report of his excavations. Obviously, it was cut off by the "nation state". You would think a scholar investigating the issue would try to find out why it was cut off, who did it and for what reason. No such luck!
So when he says "It is difficult to accept Lal's explanation of events...
", it is just idle speculation and hardly based on any facts. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Despite his adamant position, other than one photograph, Lal has never made the notebooks and sketches of his excavation available to other scholars.." (p. 84)
The matter has been examined at the highest level and it has been decided that the experts may be shown photographs (enclosed) of the controversial trench AVID-4 pertaining the Ayodhya to excavations to clarify the locus of the excavator's findings. Any scholar on the basis of photographs can assess nature of the exposed structure and understand himself the relation between the structures and stratigraphy. [1]
References
I think we should have a separate article called "Archaeology of the Ayodhya Dispute".
This article is about excavations of Ayodhya, broadly. It's like saying that Angkor Wat should only be within the article on archaeology in Angkor (if there was such an article).
I found this article linked from the article " Ayodhya dispute", with the intention of finding archaeological evidence in the surveys ordered of the land underneath the demolished Babri Masjid. The subject of this article is the city of Ayodhya, and the subject of a birthplace of Ram overwhelms the article, and likewise a birthplace of Ram deserves an article by itself, without details of other sites. The significance of this article cannot be understated - It underlies the claims of legitimacy around a watershed event in recent history.
Let me know your thoughts, before I'd separate the articles.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an extremely important article that underlies the Babri Masjid demolition and Ram Temple, a watershed event in recent history. I came here to find the evidence presented on all sides of whether or not there was a temple demolished and the Babri Masjid was built. It has only a single image. What were the archeological finds? Can I see them? The images presented in the court cases?
In general, there are little to no images related to the Babri Masjid and Ram Mandir controversy. I am putting image requests across several articles, if you can help.
-- NittyG ( talk) 05:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is there no image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raguks ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand reference number 16. How do I verify the claims made by it? Wouldn't it be better to remove those statements that are referenced by it? Shashi 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This article stinks. It seems to be espousing the 'my people get this thing because we were here first' mentality that is extensively used by people who failed at diplomacy. It needs to be revamped completely. Sukiari ( talk) 06:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
@ BodBeral:, you are edit warring here [1]. As explained in my revert this source does not appear to be a reliable source as per WP:HISTRS. Please explain your reasons for including it here. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned in the last paragraph of the article, the archaeological findings are no longer disputed since the Supreme Court of India has since evaluated all the evidence so far and made a judgement. The article requires revisions based on these results. Cwarrior ( talk) 15:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
[2] has good layman summary of the evidences considered by the Supreme Court. Cwarrior ( talk) 02:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Disputed content:
On objections raised with regards to ASIs various scientific claims by the Muslim parties, the Supreme Court observed, the contesting parties could have raised it before the Allahabad High Court as there were legal remedies available for the same. [1] The apex court of India also commented that the ASI report which was submitted on behalf of the Allahabad High Court was not an "ordinary opinion". [2] At the same time, on The Historians report to the Nation authored by Aligrah historians and presented as an evidence, the court observed : "At the highest, this report can be taken as an opinion." [3]
References
- ^ "Ayodhya dispute: Muslim parties in SC retract statement on Ram Chabutra - India News". Retrieved 2020-08-08.
- ^ "Ayodhya case: SC says ASI report not an ordinary opinion; inferences drawn by cultivated minds - The Economic Times". Retrieved 2020-08-08.
- ^ "Historians' report on Babri mosque mere 'opinion': SC | India News - Times of India". Retrieved 2020-08-08.
Kautilya3 Hello, you have reverted my edits in the section "Court verdict after analysis of ASI report" with edit summary - "these are superficial comments that add no value ot this page, which should be about the archaeology". The edits were clearly discussing the Courts analysis on the ASI report and well cited. Iam not sure how you see them as "superficial" and not worth a mention in the section discussing courts verdict? Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 12:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
A whole section is dedicated on "Controversy regarding the archaeological findings" to rebut the findings of an "High Court" appointed and monitored ASI excavation. Based on which the Courts (among many other evidences) relied and made a Judgement, for which again a dedicated sub-section named: "Court verdict after analysis of ASI report" is included in the article. But, according to you, the senior editors, the comments made by the Court with respect to the questions raised by the litigants in the "Controversy regarding..." section is not relevant to be added in the relevant section is bit amusing. However, I seek your help in finding the appropriate context and space to add the content in the article about the case. Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Joshua Jonathan, I am intending to revert this edit of yours, which is said to have copied content from the B. B. Lal page. I find it full of polemics and innuendo and short on substance. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Brian Hole writes
here: "I am researching the role of heritage in defining identity in India, from the perspectives of the nation state and of minority groups.
"
So you would think, "brilliant, here is somebody who knows archaeology and he is examining identity politics". But, as far as Ayodhya is concerned, I don't see him having done any new investigation other than what has already been published in various places. ( UCL thesis). For example, B. B. Lal had said repeatedly that his funding was cut off and he could't complete the report of his excavations. Obviously, it was cut off by the "nation state". You would think a scholar investigating the issue would try to find out why it was cut off, who did it and for what reason. No such luck!
So when he says "It is difficult to accept Lal's explanation of events...
", it is just idle speculation and hardly based on any facts. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Despite his adamant position, other than one photograph, Lal has never made the notebooks and sketches of his excavation available to other scholars.." (p. 84)
The matter has been examined at the highest level and it has been decided that the experts may be shown photographs (enclosed) of the controversial trench AVID-4 pertaining the Ayodhya to excavations to clarify the locus of the excavator's findings. Any scholar on the basis of photographs can assess nature of the exposed structure and understand himself the relation between the structures and stratigraphy. [1]
References
I think we should have a separate article called "Archaeology of the Ayodhya Dispute".
This article is about excavations of Ayodhya, broadly. It's like saying that Angkor Wat should only be within the article on archaeology in Angkor (if there was such an article).
I found this article linked from the article " Ayodhya dispute", with the intention of finding archaeological evidence in the surveys ordered of the land underneath the demolished Babri Masjid. The subject of this article is the city of Ayodhya, and the subject of a birthplace of Ram overwhelms the article, and likewise a birthplace of Ram deserves an article by itself, without details of other sites. The significance of this article cannot be understated - It underlies the claims of legitimacy around a watershed event in recent history.
Let me know your thoughts, before I'd separate the articles.