This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
@
Toddy1: I disagree about a couple of these.
Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is about a previously created trust that was planning the construction of a temple, and hoped to take possession of the land after the Supreme Court's decision. The SC, however, ordered the constitution of a new trust, the
Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra; the Nyas is thus rendered essentially irrelevant, and its article should just be an overview of it's short existence, with brief context commensurate with
WP:DUE.
Babri Masjid is about the mosque; its construction, history, architecture (if sources are available), and destruction.
Ram Janmabhoomi needs to be about the concept of Rama's birthplace; there is no piece of the history of this site that does not have dedicated articles. If we do not want an article about that concept, that page needs to be folded into
Ayodhya dispute, which is the overview article. Content about the concept of a birthplace is, of course, dominated by this particular site, but is not exclusively material about this site; that's also where analysis of how this site came to be seen as Rama's birthplace belongs. Finally, there is also
Archaeology of Ayodhya, which is about the excavations and their interpretations (and which is another reason
Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be just about the site). Pardon the long reply, but I think this addresses your questions from both sections. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
There's also
Ram Rath Yatra, about the 1990 political rally. Incidentally, which articles do you think are lacking in neutrality? Not disputing that there are a few, but specifics are always useful. Vanamonde (
Talk)19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we need some sort of "roadmap" that goes in all the related articles that explains the relationship between them; your explanation is good - maybe you could turn it into a standard paragraph at the end of the lead of each article; another solution would be a template.
Template:Ayodhya debate lists some/all of the articles (and some others) does not meet this need since it explains nothing. Two editors have expressed an objection to Dr2Rao adding cut-and-pasted stuff that is making all these articles clones of each other, but I do not see how he/she could possibly be sure that it is the wrong thing to do.--
Toddy1(talk)19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Your suggestion of a roadmap is something we should think further about, but Dr2rao's actions are not excused by the lack of clarity.
WP:DUE applies, as does
WP:CONSENSUS. Having been told to stop indiscriminately copying information back and forth, Dr2rao needs to stop doing so and obtain consensus for their changes. Vanamonde (
Talk)20:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you look at
Talk:Ayodhya dispute#Was there a riot on 6 December 1992, Dr2Rao had removed mention of a riot on 6 December and inserted mention of other riots in other cities that happened once news got out about the demolition of the mosque. Kautilya3 said that "The post-demolition riots are not the 'Ayodhya dispute'."
If you assume (as I did) that the
Ayodhya dispute article was about the dispute, then we would be right to reinstate mention of the riot on 6 December, and remove mention of later riots in other cities.
But, if the
Ayodhya dispute is the overview article, then Dr2Rao was right to mention the post-demolition riots, and and you can see his arguments for deleting mention of the riot on 6 December.
I thought that the dispute was a topic in itself, and the
Liberhan Commission and the
2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute were subtopics of that. I thought that the dispute article should deal with the issues that are relevant to the court cases and past and present local and central government decisions (including the railing decision of 1857/59). I am not sure that it is a good basis for an overview.--
Toddy1(talk)21:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not logically see what other title could serve as an overview, and I don't see why anything in the current
Ayodhya dispute article prevents it from being an overview. Indeed, if something else is written as an overview, we'd need to delete
Ayodhya dispute as a POVFORK. I don't see any material therein that doesn't belong in an overview. Vanamonde (
Talk)23:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Babri was not a mosque, it was a disputed structure built by Mir Baki, as per Supreme Court Verdict on Shri Ram Janmabhoomi on 9th November 2019
YS...896 (
talk)
06:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Babri Masjid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
~~
Hindu nationalists did not demolish the mosque, some Hindu extremists demolished it
Hi! Please
WP:SIGN your talk page posts. As for your request: 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. Signed,
I Am Chaos (
talk)
22:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Inshirah Zafar.
Hey kautilya3, why do you think the categories "destruction of religious buildings" and "violence against Muslims in asia" should be removed from this article?
Crainsaw (
talk)
06:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Because this page is not about the "destruction". It is about the (former) mosque. There is a page called
Demolition of Babri Masjid, which already has the required categories.
More generally, you are a newbie editor, who hasn't yet taken time to understand how Wikpedia works and all that exists here. Your self-assurance and tendency to
edit war are going to get you into trouble. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
10:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 demolition is a synonym destruction and now that I think about it demolition might be the wrong term to use since its mostly used when something is legally destroyed, destruction is more used when something is illegally destroyed and since this was an act of terrorism, I will start a new discussion about changing the name of the article
Crainsaw (
talk)
10:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
btw don't just assume I am new, I used to have another account when the pandemic started but left it inactive in early 2022 now a friend convinced me to join Wikipedia again
Crainsaw (
talk)
10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 I recently visited India and the city of ayodhya and when I asked the locals about the abandoned building, they told me tge the story so I looked it up on Wikipedia
Crainsaw (
talk)
12:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
@
Toddy1: I disagree about a couple of these.
Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is about a previously created trust that was planning the construction of a temple, and hoped to take possession of the land after the Supreme Court's decision. The SC, however, ordered the constitution of a new trust, the
Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra; the Nyas is thus rendered essentially irrelevant, and its article should just be an overview of it's short existence, with brief context commensurate with
WP:DUE.
Babri Masjid is about the mosque; its construction, history, architecture (if sources are available), and destruction.
Ram Janmabhoomi needs to be about the concept of Rama's birthplace; there is no piece of the history of this site that does not have dedicated articles. If we do not want an article about that concept, that page needs to be folded into
Ayodhya dispute, which is the overview article. Content about the concept of a birthplace is, of course, dominated by this particular site, but is not exclusively material about this site; that's also where analysis of how this site came to be seen as Rama's birthplace belongs. Finally, there is also
Archaeology of Ayodhya, which is about the excavations and their interpretations (and which is another reason
Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be just about the site). Pardon the long reply, but I think this addresses your questions from both sections. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
There's also
Ram Rath Yatra, about the 1990 political rally. Incidentally, which articles do you think are lacking in neutrality? Not disputing that there are a few, but specifics are always useful. Vanamonde (
Talk)19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we need some sort of "roadmap" that goes in all the related articles that explains the relationship between them; your explanation is good - maybe you could turn it into a standard paragraph at the end of the lead of each article; another solution would be a template.
Template:Ayodhya debate lists some/all of the articles (and some others) does not meet this need since it explains nothing. Two editors have expressed an objection to Dr2Rao adding cut-and-pasted stuff that is making all these articles clones of each other, but I do not see how he/she could possibly be sure that it is the wrong thing to do.--
Toddy1(talk)19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Your suggestion of a roadmap is something we should think further about, but Dr2rao's actions are not excused by the lack of clarity.
WP:DUE applies, as does
WP:CONSENSUS. Having been told to stop indiscriminately copying information back and forth, Dr2rao needs to stop doing so and obtain consensus for their changes. Vanamonde (
Talk)20:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you look at
Talk:Ayodhya dispute#Was there a riot on 6 December 1992, Dr2Rao had removed mention of a riot on 6 December and inserted mention of other riots in other cities that happened once news got out about the demolition of the mosque. Kautilya3 said that "The post-demolition riots are not the 'Ayodhya dispute'."
If you assume (as I did) that the
Ayodhya dispute article was about the dispute, then we would be right to reinstate mention of the riot on 6 December, and remove mention of later riots in other cities.
But, if the
Ayodhya dispute is the overview article, then Dr2Rao was right to mention the post-demolition riots, and and you can see his arguments for deleting mention of the riot on 6 December.
I thought that the dispute was a topic in itself, and the
Liberhan Commission and the
2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute were subtopics of that. I thought that the dispute article should deal with the issues that are relevant to the court cases and past and present local and central government decisions (including the railing decision of 1857/59). I am not sure that it is a good basis for an overview.--
Toddy1(talk)21:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not logically see what other title could serve as an overview, and I don't see why anything in the current
Ayodhya dispute article prevents it from being an overview. Indeed, if something else is written as an overview, we'd need to delete
Ayodhya dispute as a POVFORK. I don't see any material therein that doesn't belong in an overview. Vanamonde (
Talk)23:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Babri was not a mosque, it was a disputed structure built by Mir Baki, as per Supreme Court Verdict on Shri Ram Janmabhoomi on 9th November 2019
YS...896 (
talk)
06:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Babri Masjid has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
~~
Hindu nationalists did not demolish the mosque, some Hindu extremists demolished it
Hi! Please
WP:SIGN your talk page posts. As for your request: 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. Signed,
I Am Chaos (
talk)
22:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Inshirah Zafar.
Hey kautilya3, why do you think the categories "destruction of religious buildings" and "violence against Muslims in asia" should be removed from this article?
Crainsaw (
talk)
06:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Because this page is not about the "destruction". It is about the (former) mosque. There is a page called
Demolition of Babri Masjid, which already has the required categories.
More generally, you are a newbie editor, who hasn't yet taken time to understand how Wikpedia works and all that exists here. Your self-assurance and tendency to
edit war are going to get you into trouble. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
10:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 demolition is a synonym destruction and now that I think about it demolition might be the wrong term to use since its mostly used when something is legally destroyed, destruction is more used when something is illegally destroyed and since this was an act of terrorism, I will start a new discussion about changing the name of the article
Crainsaw (
talk)
10:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
btw don't just assume I am new, I used to have another account when the pandemic started but left it inactive in early 2022 now a friend convinced me to join Wikipedia again
Crainsaw (
talk)
10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 I recently visited India and the city of ayodhya and when I asked the locals about the abandoned building, they told me tge the story so I looked it up on Wikipedia
Crainsaw (
talk)
12:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)