This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
B. B. Lal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2018 and May 2, 2021. |
![]() | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 10 September 2022. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
Recently, a phrase stating that Lal is more commonly referred to as BB (or B.B.) was removed. Why? This is the way he is generally referred to. Also, since there is apparently a politician named BB Lal, this should be briefly mentioned and clarified beyond the otherwise maybe a bit confusing "Not to be confused with..." that is currently in the article. Kdammers ( talk) 18:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
There a lot of photographs of the man. I don't know all the ins and outs of fair use, but some-one who does might be able to choose one of the many ones on the Internet that is allowable and add it to our article. Kdammers ( talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The authors have added books as citations to this claim. The citations are not journalistic and unreliable. This is a biased narrative and should be removed. There is ample credible photojournalistic evidence that is clearly against this propaganda. This should be removed from his main introduction. --- This section: ```His later publications have been noted and criticised for their historical revisionism, taking a controversial stance in the Ayodhya dispute, claiming to have found the remains of a columned Hindu temple beneath the subsequently destroyed Babri Masjid mosque.``` Whysoanonymous ( talk) 08:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Coningham & Young p.84: "A controversial figure on account of his interpretations at Ayodhya" - either you lack WP:COMPETENCE, or you are WP:TENDENTIOUS oblivious of what the sources say. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding
His later publications have been criticised for their historical revisionism, [1] taking a controversial [2] stance in the Ayodhya dispute, claiming to have found the remains of a columned Hindu temple beneath the subsequently destroyed Babri Masjid mosque. [3] Although the landmark 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute [4] upheld B.B Lal's findings, effectively rejecting the historical revisionist claim [4].
References
Times of India actually says
9. The SC said that archaeological evidence cannot be brushed aside as conjecture and hypothesis. Archaeological evidence supports that the Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land but on a Hindu structure. However, Aracheolgical Survey of India findings did not say whether a Hindu temple was demolished to construct a mosque.
This is not a validation of Lal's claim that a Hindu temple structure was found. Nor does the ToI say that the SC " effectively reject[ed] the historical revisionist claim." That's the opinion of the editor, that is, OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is bb Lal's stance on ayodhya considered controversial but stance of pro babri historians is not reported as such?
Pro babri historians changed their positions multiple times. In 1980s, it was that Babri was built on vacant land. After excavation, they changed their stance that it was built on buddhist/jain site and some saying on another mosque.
Also, after discovery of Vishnu Hari inscription, pro Babri historians said it was stolen from Lucknow museum without providing any evidence
Factpineapple (
talk) 07:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@ MPGuy2824: I'm wondering whether the politician is really the primary topic for B. B. Lal. Pageviews show that the archaeologist got about 20 times more views than the politician before the move, and they're roughly equal after the move. Search results are almost all about the archaeologist. The archaeologist has 337 incoming links from mainspace compared to 27 for the politician. Have I missed something? Certes ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@ MPGuy2824: As you're a page mover, please can you move the pages if and when you feel there's enough evidence that the archaeologist is primary? I suggest B. B. Lal move to B. B. Lal (governor) then B. B. Lal (archaeologist) back to B. B. Lal. The governor will need a new talk page. Certes ( talk) 21:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC) It's now a month since the page move. Pageviews still show the archaeologist on top, suggesting strongly that the politician is not a primary topic and should not be at the base name. That graph is not sufficient to prove the archaeologist primary, but this one from before the page move is. Do we have consensus to revert the move, or should we hold a RM? Certes ( talk) 14:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the governor, requested at RMTR that the archaeologist be moved, and fixed the incoming links and redirects. I've temporarily redirected B. B. Lal to the archaeologist to deter bots from breaking double redirects which will become correct once the outstanding move occurs. Certes ( talk) 17:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
We should also give each person their own talk page, rather than one redirecting to the other, but that's best left until we confirm the article titles. Certes ( talk) 09:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
B. B. Lal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2018 and May 2, 2021. |
![]() | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 10 September 2022. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
Recently, a phrase stating that Lal is more commonly referred to as BB (or B.B.) was removed. Why? This is the way he is generally referred to. Also, since there is apparently a politician named BB Lal, this should be briefly mentioned and clarified beyond the otherwise maybe a bit confusing "Not to be confused with..." that is currently in the article. Kdammers ( talk) 18:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
There a lot of photographs of the man. I don't know all the ins and outs of fair use, but some-one who does might be able to choose one of the many ones on the Internet that is allowable and add it to our article. Kdammers ( talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The authors have added books as citations to this claim. The citations are not journalistic and unreliable. This is a biased narrative and should be removed. There is ample credible photojournalistic evidence that is clearly against this propaganda. This should be removed from his main introduction. --- This section: ```His later publications have been noted and criticised for their historical revisionism, taking a controversial stance in the Ayodhya dispute, claiming to have found the remains of a columned Hindu temple beneath the subsequently destroyed Babri Masjid mosque.``` Whysoanonymous ( talk) 08:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Coningham & Young p.84: "A controversial figure on account of his interpretations at Ayodhya" - either you lack WP:COMPETENCE, or you are WP:TENDENTIOUS oblivious of what the sources say. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding
His later publications have been criticised for their historical revisionism, [1] taking a controversial [2] stance in the Ayodhya dispute, claiming to have found the remains of a columned Hindu temple beneath the subsequently destroyed Babri Masjid mosque. [3] Although the landmark 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute [4] upheld B.B Lal's findings, effectively rejecting the historical revisionist claim [4].
References
Times of India actually says
9. The SC said that archaeological evidence cannot be brushed aside as conjecture and hypothesis. Archaeological evidence supports that the Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land but on a Hindu structure. However, Aracheolgical Survey of India findings did not say whether a Hindu temple was demolished to construct a mosque.
This is not a validation of Lal's claim that a Hindu temple structure was found. Nor does the ToI say that the SC " effectively reject[ed] the historical revisionist claim." That's the opinion of the editor, that is, OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is bb Lal's stance on ayodhya considered controversial but stance of pro babri historians is not reported as such?
Pro babri historians changed their positions multiple times. In 1980s, it was that Babri was built on vacant land. After excavation, they changed their stance that it was built on buddhist/jain site and some saying on another mosque.
Also, after discovery of Vishnu Hari inscription, pro Babri historians said it was stolen from Lucknow museum without providing any evidence
Factpineapple (
talk) 07:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@ MPGuy2824: I'm wondering whether the politician is really the primary topic for B. B. Lal. Pageviews show that the archaeologist got about 20 times more views than the politician before the move, and they're roughly equal after the move. Search results are almost all about the archaeologist. The archaeologist has 337 incoming links from mainspace compared to 27 for the politician. Have I missed something? Certes ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@ MPGuy2824: As you're a page mover, please can you move the pages if and when you feel there's enough evidence that the archaeologist is primary? I suggest B. B. Lal move to B. B. Lal (governor) then B. B. Lal (archaeologist) back to B. B. Lal. The governor will need a new talk page. Certes ( talk) 21:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC) It's now a month since the page move. Pageviews still show the archaeologist on top, suggesting strongly that the politician is not a primary topic and should not be at the base name. That graph is not sufficient to prove the archaeologist primary, but this one from before the page move is. Do we have consensus to revert the move, or should we hold a RM? Certes ( talk) 14:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I have moved the governor, requested at RMTR that the archaeologist be moved, and fixed the incoming links and redirects. I've temporarily redirected B. B. Lal to the archaeologist to deter bots from breaking double redirects which will become correct once the outstanding move occurs. Certes ( talk) 17:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
We should also give each person their own talk page, rather than one redirecting to the other, but that's best left until we confirm the article titles. Certes ( talk) 09:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)