Talk:Ram Mandir

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

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...”. The Sankaracharya of Jyotir Math mentioned that "...When cow slaughter ends in the country, i will visit Ayodhya's Ram Mandir, celebrating with enthusiasm...". PeoLike (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 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)

References

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)

Wording in second sentence

Arbitrary header #1

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)

• The proposals here would uniformly make the article worse. The wording needs to be based on what scholarly sources have to say, and there are no scholarly sources which presume the site of the temple to be the site of Rama's birthplace. Removing the adjective is an absolute non-starter: there is no scholarly support at all for that position. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  And which sources mentioned in the article after the sentence exactly say "Mythical Birth" ? I never claimed it to be his real birthplace of if the deity exists or not, but to say something like that in some of the first sentences of a place of worship seems to be overkill ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

So do i have consensus for removing it then or replace the word ? Since the sentence itself never really had consensus nor is the wording supported by any sources. Without any replies i just have to assume ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We already do have a news-source in the article which explicitly uses the word "myth": <ref>Pankaj, Jayant (6 December 2021). "Rama Janmabhoomi Issue: Exposing the myth behind the narrative". The International. Archived from the original on 29 May 2023. Retrieved 17 January 2024.. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not really neither of the sources mentioned after the sentence use in it that way and according to WP:IC, a source should be placed accordingly. Besides that you know my problem is with the phrase "Mythical birth" not if the word Myth is mentioned in a source and the way "Mythical birth" is worded isn't mentioned in a verifiable news source neither in the one you mentioned. I also think context matters here. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Context does matter indeed. You've given four arguments to remove "myhtical," namely weasel word, "bad taste," unsourced, and no consensus. You already stated that "weasel word" was not conving; there are plent of sources to be found for "mythical"; so far there is consensus to keep this word, which only leaves "bad taste." You wrote the subject matter here is a place of worship and to phrase a sentence like that just seems unnecessary. A place of worship was demolished, people were killed, and the relations between Muslims and Hindus were seriously damaged - this is all okay, but we can't use the word "mythical," because it hurts the sensitivities of one group, the group who demolished a place of worship? Put their beliefs them above any alternative views on their convictions? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I support Joshua Jonathan's solution here (to add a link to myth so people can easily check what it actually means if they're unsure). "Mythical" doesn't necessarily mean fictional; it's not derogatory or a weasel word. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Again you say there are plenty of sources without mentioning any. Like i stated above my problem is with the phrase "Mythical birth". Also the Ayodhya dispute is widely discussed in the intro of this article it self, so i don't really see what that has to do with the phrase i have a problem with ? You yourself are now saying that removing it because it hurts the sensitivities of one group and that of course wouldn't be fair. But leaving it like that is beneficiary for the other group. According to WP:NPOV, neutrality counts even higher than consensus. Keep in mind that i wanted to replace the word not remove it. Removing it only was a suggestion to reach consensus with you. I also again think it is unneccesary to all of a sudden add a hyperlink to something that is now being discussed on the talkpage. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Sources:

• Dumper, Michael (2020). Power, Piety, and People: The Politics of Holy Cities in the Twenty-First Century. Columbia University Press.:

..the mythical birthplace of Lord Ram has become, in the eyes of many Hindus, the real birthplace now [...] what is "believed in" motivates and engenders the passion around such holy sites [...] As Varshney points out about Ayodhya, "Muslim leaders kept harking back on the religious meaning of Ayodhya, refusing to encounter the nationalistic meaning. Worse, the various mosque action committees (and the secular historians) initially argues that Rama was a mythological figure, for there was no historical proof for Rama's existence or his birthplace. This was a gratitious argument.... Religious belief does not depend upon rational evidence."

Hmmm, I found a very good argument foryour point of view... I'll turn this quote into a note. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Have kind off looked in to it and the writer seems reliable, reading this it also seems like the writer is explaining how a certain side views it as being mythological ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, definitely; so, ironically, I found a very good argument for your point of view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what? The source very clearly says the birthplace is mythical, but is an article of faith for some Hindus. That's supporting the use of mythical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading it seems like the writer is quoting the different viewpoints and not clearly stating that the Birthplace is mythical and that the viewpoint of it being mythical is mainly supported by one side; the various mosque action committees (and the secular historians) ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's an egregious mis-reading of the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Guess our opinions differ on that which is okay, although not favorable ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've changed "mythical" into "supposed" diff, and included a note; I hope this works fine for everyone. If not, let's discuss further. "Supposed" can be changed back into "mythical," with the same source and note; I'm not sure yet myself. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I can live with "supposed" but it's much more of a weasel word, to me; supposed by who? It would be more appropriate for the belief that Rama's birthplace - regardless of its existence - lies at that exact spot, but this adjective is for qualifying its existence. Mythical attributes it to some degree. How about "mythological"? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

much more of a weasel word yes, that's right. I've changed the term back to "mythical," as there is no consensus yet, and adapted the note diff, which now says that the term is "loaded." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Mythological and Mythical are way to similar. Supposed seems fine to me, but to make it more clear add a note that says it is supposed/believed by Hindus themselves ? Otherwise a other word like Believed or presumed with also that same note (saying it is only a belief shared by Hindus or Some Hindus) could work and would be fine by me. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So would these suggestions above be okay ? Adding a note as mentioned above would make it less likely to be perceived as a weasel term. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No. You have addressed any of the objections above, you've only bludgeoned the discussion. Ayodhya is Rama's birthplace in Hindu mythology: "mythological" is a precise term for it, which "supposed" is not. You cannot take lack of reply as agreement when all you are doing is repeating the same argument. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure I have addressed them ? There are still no sources placed after the sentence that justify that phrasing (WP:IC), according to WP:NPOV neutrality also has a place here, your saying "mythological" is a precise term for it but again that specific phrasing isn't supported and the most recent verifiable source that was found and actually does support my viewpoint you claim to be akin to yours. I also think I never took lack of reply as agreement since I then obviously would have implemented it, while I in this case took great lengths to discuss it on the talkpage and will continue to do so. You are also saying i repeat the same arguments ? Pretty sure i have countered similar counter arguments made. I was in this case just stating suggestions and saying I agree with the change of replacing "mythical" into "supposed", only thing i suggested was adding a note to make it less likely to be perceived as a weasel term. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Most serious scholarly sources that cover this issue in detail contextualize Rama's birth as a matter of myth or legend: the ones who do not, don't bother because they assume the reader is aware. The Dumper source above explicitly supports this wording. Here is another that does so. You are entitled to interpret that source any way you please, but not to insert your misrepresentations into the article. You do not have consensus here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your honestly again misinterpreting what i'm trying to say, like i have continuously repeated above my problem isn't with whether Rama's birth is a myth or a fact. My problem is with the exact phrasing of "Mythical birthplace", which isn't really used in the intro of similar pages nor supported by the sources. You are now using a source of a book from 1994 that doesn't seem to be in the text (I might be wrong here) ? And again doesn't even phrase it like that nor fully says it is a myth. About the consensus thing, i was giving consensus to @Joshua Jonathan of of replacing "mythical" with "supposed". Since he mentioned there wasn't any when implementing it. I have also again mentioned above that i was just suggesting adding a note to make it less likely to be perceived as a weasel term. Besides that my main goal on the talkpage was to find a replacement for "mythical" to make it appear more neutral, removing the word completely or putting supposed specifically weren't necessarily my ideas but more things i'd have to agree with to reach consensus. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion, and based on reading Vanamonde93's source and the source linked by @Joshua Jonathan's (and doing some preliminary research on the topic) I agree that "mythical" seems to be the most academic-consensus appropriate term to use as of right now.

Wikipedia should try to reflect scholarly consensus, and not try to right great wrong by trying to appear NPOV (to give a example Wikipedia calls the Geocentric model a "superseded" model, even though Flat earthers tend to disagree) and I think going for "supposed" nudges us too far into the right great wrong territory. (since it implies that the belief that the area is the birthplace of Rama is grounded on anything other than mythology). Sohom (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your example is right here, mythical as seen in the source by Dumper, Michael above is only supported by one side and therefore not neutral. The opposite side obviously would want the word entirely removed. I think replacing the word with something that is more in middleground is the best way to go here. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says representing all relevant points of view. Only presenting the religious point of view obviously is not neutral. And no doubt there are sources that say that Ayodhya is the real, factual birthplace of Ram, but I can predict what kind of sources that are... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never said to only present the religious point of view (which is to remove the word completely), but suggested to replace it which in this case would be more neutral. Since mythical is supported by one side. I also don't think saying it is the factual birthplace of Ram is needed, but phrasing it like this "the birthplace of Rama in Hinduism" [1], already states that it is only seen like that in Hinduism itself. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)