Talk:Babri Masjid

Suggested change in wordings in the article
Since the report by ASI confirmed that there existed a Hindu structure beneath the Babri Masjid and the findings upheld by Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, shouldn't the phrase "many Hindus believe was built upon the site of Ram janmabhoomi, the hypothesized birthplace of Rama" in the opening paragraph (and other such instances elsewhere in the article) be modified to remove the words "many Hindus believe"? The belief is only restricted to the actual existence of Rama, the existence of a temple at that place is a fact and should not be debatable. 103.220.30.110 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There's a couple of issues with that. First, we give scholarly sources greater weight than the ASI. Second, the ASI's basic findings (which are generally accepted, I believe) are that there is evidence of a Hindu structure beneath the mosque. The ASI's findings have nothing to say about the birthplace of Rama; that remains an article of faith, and needs to be framed as such. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes the archaeological findings of a temple has nothing to do with the claim that Ram was born here. It's a different claim. Capitals00 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. ASI has yet to post any photos of the archaeological site which contains the remains of any hindu deities. Kkllnnmm (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any paper supporting this? Most of the papers I am reading are suggesting that the results of the ASA investigation were inconclusive   Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For which bit? I said "basic" intentionally: I don't believe anyone disputes that structures were found below the mosque that were not part of the mosque. I don't believe it's generally accepted that those constituted a temple: that part is controversial, and the data are considered inconclusive. And no scholarly source accepts it as evidence of the demolition of a temple, and of course where Rama's birthplace lies is an article of faith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, you said Second, the ASI's basic findings (which are generally accepted, I believe) are that there is evidence of a Hindu structure beneath the mosque. I took that as you accepting there was a temple, my apologies for misintepreting you. Would you mind reverting Wikidrifterr's recent additions to the lead, which basically uncrticially repeat the Hindu temple claim as fact? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I was imprecise, so no apologies required; I should perhaps have said "evidence of a non-mosque structure", which is generally assumed to be Hindu but I don't think sources investigate that in detail. I have reverted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree with your view on take on this. Appreciate that you put your points so well. However, I would like to suggest a small correction about the sentence containing the word hypothesized in the article's lede. Foreign travelers such as William Finch, during their visits to Ayodhya, have mentioned in their works that the local Hindus of that time believed that Vishnu took the avatar as Rama at that disputed site. Also, it was observed by some of them that the belief that the commemorating temple-related birth was destroyed during Mughal rule (i.e. Babur or Aurangzeb) was evident among Hindus. So, it is better to rephrase that sentence mentioning that, Hindus believed that the Babri masjid and its immediate surroundings to be the birthplace of Rama an aspect that foreign travelers observed. However, this belief is both supposed and contested by various scholars. My suggestion is to make sure that the information should not be contaminated by the opinions of scholars due to their ideologies. Some historians who took the approach of Marxist historiography tend to blend their opinions to influence the court proceedings and public discourse. They ultimately failed to convince the courts. Some even seem to have accepted their ignorance in Persian, and Sanskrit and relied on English works. At the same time, some highly emotional Hindu activists try to respond to this issue with emotion and anger rather than critical reasoning. So, Please think about this suggestion mentioned above about rephrasing the sentence and any discussion on it is welcome. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete article
Sorry, but the reason why supreme court of India gave this decision isn't clear !!! No, brief about the evidence found & archeological remarks on that disputed site. Please, add some clarification. This, article seems incomplete giving a sense of judgement instead pf putting the views of both the parties. 111.223.1.116 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Masid k niche jo ram ke murti mile hai wo court ki dekh rekh m khudai huyi hai iska koi evidence hai court k pass 2409:40E3:100C:B9D:24F0:B1A5:B355:AE82 (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hindu activists?
Hi please use another word here, activist is not a word that should be used here. That was invasive, offensive action violating the worship place of another religious group and resulted in most number of deaths of the group that was attacked. The word “extremist” seems more appropriate.

// On 6 December 1992, a large group of Hindu activists belonging to the Vishva Hindu Parishadand allied organisations demolished the mosque, triggering riots all over the Indian subcontinent, resulting in the death of around 2,000–3,000 people. //2001:14BB:AA:917B:5447:181B:56CE:646F (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Tiefenthaler
I will take a look at Tiefenthaler's original work when I have some time but does he provide descriptions about the inscriptions of any other site? Fwiw, neither is Kunal a trained historian nor is Prabhat Prakashan a reputed publisher. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc. Fyi, @Vanamonde93 and Kautilya3. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I continue to hold that Kunal's proposal about the Babar Inscription being a forgery is true but yet, the above argument seems too tedious. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that Kunal is not an ideal source, and I would suggest looking for better, more scholarly sources but honestly it's very hard to find good sources on this dispute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Kachhwa Maps
Map 22; Maps [50, 70, 189, 194, 282]; Map 71; Map 179 - Check all. TrangaBellam (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that the map discussed by R. Nath — and discussed in Jain — is Tarah No. 179 TrangaBellam (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Indian Map Used
please use correct Indian map... You are using Indian map which is incomplete and wrong 106.205.185.128 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)