Talk:B. B. Lal

BB
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)

Photograph
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)

Unreliable and incorrect citations driving the historical revisionist narrative
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)


 * There does not appear to be any problem with the citations, many of which are to journals in the field. Please detail each source with which you have a problem and explain why you think it is unreliable. Skyerise (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The very first citation is a personal opinion of the author in a now defunct, partisan journal with no peer review. The author does not cite any source and merely states his opinion. This is too harsh and incorrect to use this as a core point in the person's biography. here is the content of the citation. There is photo journalistic evidence and a supreme court judgement that do a blanket rejection of this historical revisionist narrative. You are welcome to read the judgement here : 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute - Wikipedia
 * And should remove this false narrative from the page. Whysoanonymous (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile i have removed some redundant info and moved a paragraph from intro to a appropriate section. I have also added relevant wiki page links to support with more clarity the origins of these arguments. You can verify those linked pages for accuracy.
 * But i still argue that based on the Apex court judgement, this narrative should be completely removed as it has no basis apart from personal bias of these historians. Whysoanonymous (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czello i have not removed any sourced material. I have moved it to appropriate section. could you explain your undo? Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czello could you be more specific here. What do you mean "not what sources say"??
 * D.N Jha and R.S sharma are marxist historians. You can go to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_historiography page and read it there.
 * I need you to reply here. Or i will report you. Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You did delete sourced material, here. Though I note later you moved one piece of material down (although deleted a repetition of it earlier). More importantly, you're adding the context of "Marxist historians" to the article, which appears to be WP:OR. Do the sources explicitly say this is only according to Marxist historians? — Czello (music) 11:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * YeSSSS! His work is actively disputed by marksist historians. The names of the people like D.N jha and RS sharma, and romila thapar are mentioned on the page i linked in comment above. All of them are Marxist historians.
 * Furthermore, a lot of citations are clubbed together for a single claim. Most of those sources do not call him as a historical revisionist. That is an error on the current page. Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's because multiple sources criticize him. That is not in any way "an error on the current page". Skyerise (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is your personal opinion. The citations do not mention that he was a historical revisionist. Provide proof here. You are contradicting yourself. The argument that you provided to remove my edits, is the same argument you are giving here to support yours. Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH unless you have a source that explicitly says that the criticism only comes from Marxist historians. Otherwise you're adding a slant/bias to the article. — Czello (music) 11:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And how about the word "historical revisionist". None of the sources mention this. Would you remove that or provide proof that they mention this? @Czello @Skyerise Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czello This citation should be removed. I have read the linked page and chapter on google books. This is a completely fabricated argument. This book no where mention any controversy related to BB lal.
 * Linked source for
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=hB5TCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It says, on page 85 "A controversial figure on account of his interpretations of Ayodha ..." Skyerise (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise on what basis are you appropriating the citations. The current lines are mis-cited. Could you discuss here before making changes. You should play by the same rules. Read the comment above. Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise Your citations here are invalid. You have cited 4 sources for this line. "Lal took a controversial stance"
 * There is no proof for this. This line should be removed.
 * And the apex court has given a judgement that this is not a controversy on his work and findings. So why cite this? This is your bias. please answer this. @Czello Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did normal maintainance of combining multiple citation using the correct template. I don't have to discuss edits that don't change content. Skyerise (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am asking your reason to remove /undo my edits.
 * You are undoing every edit that challenges this revisionist narrative.
 * And i have provided multiple sources. And i am asking you to provide evidence for undoing them.
 * Clearly you support the current narrative. And dont have facts to argue. I will raise this with the administrative editors in absence of factual discussion with you.
 * And so far you are avoiding the court judement point i made. I will raise this issue too. Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just provided a quote from one source. I will not read the other sources for you. You are just plain wrong about it not being supported by the sources. Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * this source does not say historical revioinsist any where. I am removing this source.
 * Bhan, Suraj (1997), "Recent Trends in Indian Archaeology", Social Scientist, 25 (1/2): 3–15, doi:10.2307/3517757, JSTOR 3517757 Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A partial revert counts as a revert. If you remove it, that's a 7th revert. Skyerise (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This source removal is not a revert. The source is falsely cited to have been claiming historic revisionism. The source should be removed,.
 * Bhan, Suraj (1997), "Recent Trends in Indian Archaeology"
 * engage in constructive discussion here. Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR, you have removed that citation 5 times along with the paragraph. Even if you remove just the citation, that's a partial revert. You are so done here. Skyerise (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you are more concerned about keeping incorrect info on the page, rather than actually engaging constructively. I will report you with all the facts for the reverts that you did. Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. I've done nothing wrong here. Oh editor with less than 100 edits trying to explain the rules to an editor with over 100,000. You'd do better to listen to other editors, but have it your way. Report me. Skyerise (talk) 12:57, 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)

Supreme Court
Regarding

Times of India actually says

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)


 * Not only that, the source doesn't mention Lal. Any source on the topic would have to directly mention Lal and the effect of the ruling on opinions of his work. Otherwise it is WP:SYNTHESIS. The other sources at least mention Lal!. Skyerise (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is the stance of BB Lal considered controversial and stance of BMAC historians not?
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)

Primary topic
I'm wondering whether the politician is really the primary topic for B. B. Lal. |B._B._Lal_(archaeologist)|B._B._Lal_(politician) 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)
 * |B_B_Lal|B._B._Lal_(archaeologist) There is a spike after the page move. One explanation that i can think of is that the page move caused the article to be on many wiki reports which led to the spike. I'd suggest waiting for a month to see if it subsides. Does that seem like a good idea to you? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Certes. And you used "B B Lal", instead of "B. B. Lal". Comparing the two specific pages, I see that the politician's page views are in the single digits, wheras the archaeologist's view are in the double digits. And the "B. B. Lal" page has a huge spike in january, and a drop after the archaeologist was moved. Additionally, Google search only gives the archeologist, not the politician. So, I I kindly request you to undo the move and start a proper move-procedure. Pinging User:Bishonen for technical assistance. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could compromise on there being no primary topic and have a two-person dab like John Quested at the base name. However, that would require another click to reach either article, whereas having one person at the base name with a hatnote to the other saves a click for about half of our readers. Certes (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * your thoughts? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JJ. Yes, this page should be the primary topic for "B. B.  Lal". Lal was the original mover of the Ram Janmabhoomi project, and is widely mentioned in this context, in addition to his all other archaeology and historical ruminations.
 * The other page is best titled B. B. Lal (Governor). He was a civil servant rather than a politician. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Minor point: qualifiers are normally in sentence case, e.g. (governor). Certes (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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. |B._B._Lal_(archaeologist)|B._B._Lal_(politician) 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 |B._B._Lal_(archaeologist)|B._B._Lal_(politician) 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 fully agree with the page move. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The archaeologist is primary, agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 26 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 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)


 * All done, including moving the missing talk page which existed at . Incoming links now seem correct.  Most are via the (archaeologist) redirect; direct ones are through Template:Padma Bhushan Award recipients 2000–2009 which seems to have the correct person.  Thanks to all for the advice. Certes (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page
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)