Talk:Babri Masjid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What article is about what

@Vanamonde93: Where does this article (Babri Masjid) fit into the following?

• Ayodhya dispute = a political, historical, and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya
  • Liberhan Commission = inquiry (1992-2009) investigate the destruction of the Babri Masjid
  • 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute = The final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute was declared by the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019.

• Ayodhya firing incident = the time the police successfully prevented BJP/VHP volunteers from demolishing the mosque (30 October and 2 November 1990)
• Demolition of the Babri Masjid = what happened on 6 December 1992
• 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack = terrorist attack on a makeshift temple on the site of Babri Masjid on 5 July 2005.

• Ram Janmabhoomi = the site of a Hindu temple that existed a long time ago (whose ruins were replaced by a mosque) and the plans for new Hindu temple
  • Ram Mandir, Ayodhya = the planned new Hindu temple
  • Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas = the trust that is promoting and overseeing the construction of the planned new Hindu temple
    • Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra = the trust set up for the construction and management (the relationship between this and Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas needs explaining)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, some of these articles have zero neutrality.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• @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)

Thanks for the explanation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling it a Mosque

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)

Copyright violation

I have reverted the edit of 30 September 2020 as a copyright violation. The source was: Fatima, Komal (30 September 2020). "Babri Masjid Demolition Case: Court Acquits LK Advani, MM Joshi, 30 Others". BOL News. Retrieved 30 September 2020. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposals of additions

. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean to copy-paste something in here, TrangaBellam? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

~~

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories

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)

This page and Demolition of Babri Masjid have been around long before the pandemic. So nothing else explains your unusual interest in these topics at this time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 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)

Which abandoned building? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 the mosque, these days it looks like abandoned building with a ton of police around it Crainsaw (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no building there, abandoned or otherwise. It has been cleared away more than a decade ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 there are still small visible remininants remaining which were guarded by police Crainsaw (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not an "abandoned building".[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)