Talk:Balak Ram (idol)

Suggestion to add more information
It would be nice if more information is added to this page to improve its quality and presentation. Thank you. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Balak Ram in general or the Ram Lalla murti in the Ram Mandir?
Is this article about Balak Ram in general, or specifically about the Ram Lalla murti in the Ram Mandir? Currently the article is ambiguous on this. At times it talks about the deity in general, but other portions, e.g. Description and Consecration, talk specifically about the murti in Ayodhya.

IMO the article should be about the deity/avatar in general, with descriptions of the specific murti at the Ram Mandir moved to that page. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Brusquedandelion This article was written on the deity of Ram mandir and not the child version of Rama in general. I notice that some abrupt changes have been made by you without seeking any WP:CONS. So, I am of opinion that those edits by you may tentatively amount to WP:AGF and against WP:NOPOV. However, I restrain from making any reverts or further edits to nullify your changes as this article was created by me and it may lead to WP:EW. I would like to refer this issue to it to the attention of User:Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  and Vanamonde93 who got good track record of improving quality of articles as per Wikipedia guidelines. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that Balak Ram as a specific deity has received meaningful coverage beyond the temple in Ayodhya, though it's possible I'm wrong. I would therefore assume this page should be about the deity/idol placed within the brand new temple at Ayodhya. I don't fully follow the dispute above, but I would be happy to answer followup questions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, on the basis of Vanamonde's assertion that Balak Ram has not received meaningful coverage beyond the temple in Ayodhya (and after looking into it myself and verifying that this does appear to be the case), I have reverted the one edit I made that was based on the contrary assumption. I also cleaned up the lead a little to better reflect the actual subject of the article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93 I would appreciate if someone who is making edits can rearrange or abridge the content rather than simply removing them. Kautilya3 has suggested merging this page with Ram mandir article. You may refer to the voting happening in another section below. Can you provide your opinion? Thank you. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Awaiting the results of the merger proposal, I've moved the page to "Balak Ram murti (idol) of the Ram Mandir," as that is the obvious topic of the page. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  09:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't love how long the title is but as it looks like the merge proposal is likely to go through, I suppose there's no point discussing it right now. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think this page should be merged into Ram Mandir. Balak Ram is not an independent deity worshipped anywhere else, or described anywhere else. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - I second this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - +1. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Perhaps, the name of the article can be changed to Balak Ram (Deity) rather than merging with Ram mandir page. This article has some information which focused more on the deity rather than the temple itself. In comparison with Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala, Vithoba Temple that Ram mandir article seems to gain attention from editors with a political inclination rather than providing content about religious aspects of the temple and its historical significance. So, until that article attains a more NPOV content my suggestion is to wait. However, I do agree partially on Kautilya's point that Balak Ram being worshiped anywhere but Tulsidas was one of the devotees who touched on this version of Rama in his works. (Thanks Kautilya3 for your attention :).) Bsskchaitanya (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Venkateswara and Vithoba are independent divinities who have their own legends and mythologies even if they were incorporated into the Great Tradition of Hinduism in some form. But "Balak Rama" is simply Rama. And the aspects of iconography, and modes of worship etc. are simply part of Ram Mandir. There is no separate topic here. Pinging for his view.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are nearly convincing. However, any merger should be made sure that the content in this page is not lost unless there is strong reason such as violating Wiki guidelines. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You can do the merger yourself and make sure it is done properly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually hesitated briefly before my vote above, precisely because of the precedent for Venkateswara. But after thinking about it a bit longer I noted two things: the first, as K3 has noted above, that Venkateswara is really an independent deity that has been incorporated into the mythology of Vishnu, whereas obviously this is not the case for the relationship between Balak Ram and Ram; and two, from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, there just isn't WP:SIGCOV of Balak Ram as a deity outside the context of the Ayodhya temple— for the simple reason that the murti was not a thing until the Ram Temple was built, as best as I can tell. As for your point regarding perceived neutrality issues with the Ram Mandir article, AFAIK there's really no precedent or policy basis for creating WP:CFORKs just because of NPOV reasons, or even quality reasons in general. On the contrary WP:POVFORK generally suggests that we shouldn't do that. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - child version of Rama, only mentioned in relation to the Ram Mandir; no need to have a separate page. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  09:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose can be retained as a SUBARTICLE of the temple; the article is already 17kb, The temple article is 65 KB. Resulting article will be WP:TOOBIG. We have article on icons like Tirumala Dhruva Bera, Black Madonna of Częstochowa. Redtigerxyz  Talk 15:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh? This article's prose size is 1208 words, that of Ram Mandir is 4771 words, for a total of 5978 words. WP:TOOBIG clearly states that for articles < 6,000 words, Length alone does not justify division or trimming. The only limit that page expresses in terms of bytes is wgMaxArticleSize, equal to 2 MiB— or roughly 32 times bigger than the present size of the two articles, combined. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Kautilya3. No point in having a separate page when the base page is Ram Mandir. Merge will not exceed prose size per TOOBIG either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is about idol crafted by Arun Yogiraj. The idol itself has impressive RSES. Could be renamed as Ram Janmbhoomi idol, AyodhyaBlackOrchidd (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What's your argument? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I simply don't think it needs its own article. Chronikhiles (talk)  07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose First reason to Oppose is that resulting article will be WP:TOOBIG, because as of May 25, 2024 the Ram Mandir article prose is 5227 words, while "Balak Ram"(deity) article has 1334 words, and resulting article (even after removing duplicate info) will likely be over 6000 words, so WP:TOOBIG is a valid reason, even as there is scope for more relevant and focussed information to be added to this article, such as about the Sculptur Yogiraj and related events such as "Surya tilak". Secondly, I agree with Redtigerxyz  that this article can be retained as a SUBARTICLE of the temple, as we have article on icons like Tirumala Dhruva Bera, Black Madonna of Częstochowa. Thirdly, agree with BlackOrchidd that "Topic" of this article is focussed on the diety and the specific idol, which is has impressive RSES, and a New Discussion needs to be started about RENAMING this page, instead of MERGING. Renaming suggestions can Balak Ram (Ram Mandir deity) or Balak Ram (Ram Janambhoomi deity) or Balak Ram of Ram Mandir (Ayodhya) or more suggestions.RogerYg (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is about Bala Ram, meaning Infant form of deity Ram. Hence, as an Encyclopedia it is very necessary to retain and expand this article. We should not forget that article Christ Child is prevalent in Wikipedia since decades which covers information about Infant form of Jesus. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree (with Oppose), since Balak Ram (deity) is a notable deity (also known as Ram Lalla) and has sufficient WP:NOTABILITY as exemplified by over 50 WP:RS references (and growing) cited in this article. We have Wiki articles on many notable deities such as Black Madonna of Częstochowa, Christ Child, and Tirumala Dhruva Bera among others. Further, WP:TOOBIG is a valid reason against the merger too, as both "Ram Mandir" and "Balak Ram" articles are being developed further. Balak Ram has been translated into 3 other languages already. Also, agree with (Oppose) by Bsskchaitanya, who raised an important point that the topic and focus of this article is on the deity & religious aspects, which is not the topic or focus of the Ram Mandir article. Further, it's not a One-time event article, there is growing WP:RS coverage on Balak Ram, such on Ram Navami, Surya Tilak and other events. "Balak Ram" is most likely to become the most visited deity in the world, based on current annual visitor numbers, and having a separate article on one of the "Most Visited Deity" in the world should be supported by the WP: Notability policy. Therefore, I think this article should not be merged, instead be renamed to "Balak Ram (deity)". RogerYg (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia
could you please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine? You're adding details which are irrelevant for non-involved readers. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  17:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Joshua, with all due respect you have removed some content related to crafting of Jewels citing they are not part of today's Hinduism. On what basis you have made your claim? When I have added references from reliable sources you have removed that again. I tried to add what was reported in media. There is an article Hajar al aswad in Wikipedia which provides very minute details related to it. I gained lot of knowledge when reading that. Likewise, those who are interested in knowing details of the deity 'Balak ram' will find the contents in this article useful to gain further knowledge. A non-involved reader will not show any interest to even visit this article.
 * In the Description section, you have removed following content:
 * In the Ornaments section, you have removed following content:
 * You helped in the past in enriching the content of the Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism which I appreciate even to this date. Instead of removing content why can't you abridge it or seek WP:Consensus. We can try to have consensus to decide if the above removed content to be re-added in the article or not. The installation of idol in Ram mandir is a recent event and there can be many readers who would like to read more information about it which may be useless for another section of readers. Also you have added the word controversial before Ram mandir in the lede of the article which I have left untouched. Interestingly the same word is not used in the lede of the Ram mandir article. My concern is only oppose the systematic bias against articles related to non-Abrahamic religions in Wikipedia within the framework of its guidelines. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You helped in the past in enriching the content of the Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism which I appreciate even to this date. Instead of removing content why can't you abridge it or seek WP:Consensus. We can try to have consensus to decide if the above removed content to be re-added in the article or not. The installation of idol in Ram mandir is a recent event and there can be many readers who would like to read more information about it which may be useless for another section of readers. Also you have added the word controversial before Ram mandir in the lede of the article which I have left untouched. Interestingly the same word is not used in the lede of the Ram mandir article. My concern is only oppose the systematic bias against articles related to non-Abrahamic religions in Wikipedia within the framework of its guidelines. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You helped in the past in enriching the content of the Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism which I appreciate even to this date. Instead of removing content why can't you abridge it or seek WP:Consensus. We can try to have consensus to decide if the above removed content to be re-added in the article or not. The installation of idol in Ram mandir is a recent event and there can be many readers who would like to read more information about it which may be useless for another section of readers. Also you have added the word controversial before Ram mandir in the lede of the article which I have left untouched. Interestingly the same word is not used in the lede of the Ram mandir article. My concern is only oppose the systematic bias against articles related to non-Abrahamic religions in Wikipedia within the framework of its guidelines. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The sentence "The murti sculpted by Yogiraj was chosen as the presiding deity.[18][19]" is still there. Phrases like "During the coronation ceremony, the eyes of Ram lalla idol had a captivated look and the Sculptor Arun was praised for his mastery.[4][5][6]" and "Arun took extreme care to adhere to the Shilpa Shastras while carving eyes of the idol with a silver hammer and a gold chisel on an auspicious muhurta fixed by the head priest. He informed that before carving the eyes, he took a holy dip in the chilling Sarayu river and had darshan of Hanuman at Hanuman Garhi Temple.[7]" don't belong in an encyclopedia. "Captivated look" - says who? "Praised for his mastery" - of the "captivated look"? Should we also know what the sculptor had for breakfast? See also diff.
 * Regarding "controversial": maybe we should also add it to Ram mandir. Your concern regarding non-Abrahamic religions excludes concerns with regard to demolishing Islamic holy places?  Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, as already referenced there. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indian media has reported about the praise received by the sculptor. If admiration received by Michelangelo can be encyclopedic then why not this one. Why show bias?
 * Your anger about the demolition of Masjid is perfectly justified. So is the pain of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and tribals whose monuments have been demolished during medieval India but those events are brushed off by Marxist historians like R S Sharma, Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar as some trivial events. Only archeology can dismantle propaganda by historians; be it leftist or rightist. Contrary to your observation that I was oblivious to the demolition of Islamic places, when I created this page I have duly mentioned about the destruction of Mosque because it is part of our history. Moreover, I have admiration for your contribution in Wikipedia but my suggestion for you is to keep yourself open-minded and not to fall for any propaganda while gathering knowledge when dealing with topics like these.
 * I keep fighting against the bias shown to non-Abrahmic religions within the guidelines of Wikipedia. (I myself worship some tribal Gods related to our native tradition which has little to do with Hinduism. Should we have to prove the historicity and validity of these tribal/native Gods so that it would sound nice to some White-skinned Westerner who dictates to us what is "civilization" and "culture". Never!)
 * Regarding the word "controversial" is of least concern to me. My interest is more on Hindu religious aspects rather than politics involved in this Ayodhya issue. Your contribution is more than welcome.
 * Once this page merges which 'ram mandir' article then I will have a re-look to add some of the deleted content by you to see if it can be re-added by achieving consensus. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Regarding If admiration received by Michelangelo can be encyclopedic then why not this one, you may have a point there. But, Michelangelo is praised by generations of art critics and the like, not just by devout Catholics. I'll have a look at Michelangelo! Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  18:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The TimesNow article actually explains why the eyes of an idol are important; that's much more interesting than the fact that the sculptor received praise via Twitter for the eyes. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV
funny that you refer to WP:NPOV and WP:CSECTION when you removed diff all info about the controversial nature of the Ram Mandir from the lead. NPOV means that all relevant views are mentioned, not that they're are WP:CENSORed. CSECTION means that there shouldn't be separate criticism-sections in an article, but that criticism should be integrated into the article. How does this apply to purging the lead? Does the fact that the Ram Mandir is perceived by many non-Hindus as a token of religious intolerance and fanaticism feel as "criticism"? Wikipedia is not a free hosting-site for religious beliefs; it's an encyclopedia, which includes critical points of view, not just applause. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  07:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Joshua Jonathan, I think since the topic of this article is Balak Ram (idol), and the lead needs to include notable aspects about the topic itself, the first paragraph of this article is not the place to include criticism of Ram Mandir, which can be added in later paragraphs and the body per WP:NPOV. Therefore, I agree with the edits by @BlackOrchidd in the first paragraph, but would be happy to include the deleted content in the subsequent paragraphs. RogerYg (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)