Talk:Jai Shri Ram/Archive 1

Own notes

 * Politics after Television : Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India &#x222F; WBG converse 15:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

TIME magazine reference.
There is dispute about the inclusion of a quote attributed to TIME magazine. The objection is It is not a piece of news. It is an opinion. Opinions do not become facts. Fox example: HITLER OPINED THAT ARYAN RACE WAS SUPERIOR BUT THAT WAS JUST THAT AN OPINION NOT FACT.(and of course not true.) Were that an accurate summary of the situation they would have a point - but it is not. TIME (a fact-checking, reliable publication) published as fact an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu devotional that has become a racist dog whistle against Muslims, it did not write Rana Ayyub opined that an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu devotional that has become a racist dog whistle against Muslims. I therefore believe it should stand. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I do not have a problem with the mention that an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram. That is a fact. I have problem with the part Jai Shri Ram, a Hindu devotional that has become a racist dog whistle against Muslims. This is not a fact. It is an opinion. Therefore I am asking for removal of this part only. Keep the part where it was used against the woman but to mention that it is a racist slur is derogatory and reflects badly on the religious slogan that it is. Further, Rana Ayuub is not an editor for the TIME. SHE HAS WRITTEN THIS ARTICLE IN THE 'IDEAS' COLUMN OF THE TIME WHICH MEANS THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE PERSONAL AND NOT OF TIME. Therefore the part TIME commented that the slogan had become a "racist dog whistle" against Muslims is not right. It is Rana Ayuub who has such opinion and not TIME.Trojanishere (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * I think that if TIME publishes a piece it's not entirely unreasonable to say that "TIME commented that..." (though definitely not "TIME holds the view that...") but to avoid any ambiguity I have added the author to the quote. A reasonable compromise? Dorsetonian (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 3rd, 2020
Two requests, actually. I'm sure I won't regret wading into this.

1.) The word "thugs" is extraordinarily biased and possibly racist, regardless of who it's describing. (In the USA, it's widely accepted that a white person calling people of color "thugs" is making an inarguably racist statement.) Even though neither source uses it, it's deployed here in Wikipedia's voice, a pretty strong violation of WP:NPOV. I would say "rioters" would be an appropriate replacement.

2.) The Time article says
 * "In one, an 85-year-old woman was burned alive while the mob outside chanted Jai Shri Ram''..."

That's used to source this
 * "In one instance, an 85-year old woman was burnt alive by a mob chanting 'Jai Shri Ram'."

This was added with this edit from User:Kautilya3, who seems to have copied, pasted, then made a few alterations (including a grammatical error in removing the hyphen between "year" and "old") when they should have read the sentence, considered what exactly it was saying, then typed out a detailed paraphrase of it here. That's borderline plagiarism and it's definitely a problem. One of the changes, where the entity that perpetrated this crime isn't named in the source ("burned alive while the mob outside chanted") but is named here ("burnt alive by a mob chanting"), is a clear violation of WP:RS and arguably WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The entire sentence could probably be excised per WP:NOTNEWS and given the ongoing contentiousness at this entire topic area, that's what I would do and why I would do it. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Re 1), I will change "thugs". Re 2), I don't see a specific edit request. You are partly contesting the accuracy of the content and partly its significance to the topic. I don't agree with either of those, but we can continue discussing. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the specific change I'd like to see made, please re-read the second part of my request. It's absolutely in there in plain language. It's not up for dispute that an 85-year-old woman was killed. Do you have a reliable source for who did it? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, I have added a more detailed source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sections on mythological and other usage
Added sections on usage of the term in events other than violence. Without these, the article seems too focussed on the usage of this term in controversial incidents. Please make edits and improve the section but don't have some edit-war over this too. Jamailfaroukh (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Image for the article
One image is already on Commons and one I uploaded just now. do any of these seem suitable for the article? DTM (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have any suitable images. I guess more than one can be used, the article is slowly increasing in size for two or more. DTM (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020
A depiction of Ram in Ayodhya. Jai Shri Ram is a Hindi expression, translating to "Glory to Lord Rama" or "Victory to Lord Rama".[1] The proclamation has been used as an informal greeting[2] or as a symbol of adhering to Hindu faith[3][4] or for projection of varied faith-centered emotions, by Hindus.[5][6][7] 2405:204:9611:21EE:0:0:32E:38AC (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  JTP (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The expression attracted notability due to BJP ?
The article stated this and I have copy edited to state.

Since I don't really believe that BJP made this slogan notable. It is a religious slogan used by Hindus long before BJP and Hindutva were created by a few people. If someone believes I have made a mistake they are welcome to produce reliable sources that support the line. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ This slogan was made internationally infamous due to its misuse by right-wing groups. The extent of misuse was such that right-wing groups masculinized it from the original Jai Sia Ram (Hail lord Rama and Sita) to Jai Sri Ram (Hail lord Rama). I think that firstly, we need to cover its religious significance in the article. The lead section shouldn't start by saying, as it currently does. This will be WP:UNDUE. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 08:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Vaibhavafro thanks for the comments. the word you were looking for is "perverted", that should indeed be added. Yes, I agree with the suggestions that the stub must start with the religious connections. Accordingly I have updated the opening line.  D Big X ray ᗙ  08:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to point out that when you say that Jai Sri Ram is masculinized, you may not actually be correct. The Sri in Jai Sri Ram is not the word Shri used in Modern Hindi as honorific, but actually another name of Hindu Goddess Lakshmi. Per Ramayana, Sita was avatar of Goddess Lakshmi. The source which you have given is a very recent one, and totally ignores this. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 10:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is new to me. Can you please add a RS to your comment.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't say for sure if I'd able to find an RS for religious texts, but I'll try to find one. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info. I didn’t know that before. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 13:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I am going to be watching like a hawk for any unsourced OR being peddled here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sort of what Vaibhav argues, but there's more to it. [Placeholder for tomorrow]. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Gargi college sexual harassment incident.
I have added a well cited 5 news links which is removed by an editor ,(despite various warnings to him to stay away and open discussions if he has any problem) telling every single 5 citation as unreliable. Requesting to take a look. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to engage in discussion with you but India times, Lallantop and National Herald are not reliable sources and that’s fact. Also, just yesterday, it’s decided that we’re not going to add each and every incident but only notable one. That’s why I removed the content.— Harshil want to talk? 06:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a notable incident reported by various media houses of India for Aajtak to paper portals such as Dainik Jagran. You can check yourself. It is not a normal incident and the usage of such slogans in such cases make it noteworthy. If you need links to check notability of the incident, do let me know. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please try to understand one thing. We are not newspaper. Your content is challenged. Follow WP:BRD strictly and don’t restore it until consensus is reached.— Harshil want to talk? 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please try to let this user understand. I’m in long conflict with them and they’re not understanding about RS and not news even a bit and starts edit warring.— Harshil want to talk? 08:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You didnt even involve in discussion. You are always like your decision is final and its a line of stone which cannot and should not be changed. Dude this is not wikipedia works. First you denied telling not RS which is your old habit to remove anything which you dont want against your agenda, then when I literally cited 5 and even more citations you are telling this is not news.This may or may not be used is other thing but the use of slogan and it happened is other. Try to think rationally instead of putting a biased view of the issue.As everyone knows here you and I were warned a lot of times to stop this behaviour and I never involved in your edits after that even if you continued with your biased norms. I am citing proper article and that slogan was reported by many media houses now and I cited 5 of them. Instead of involving in a fruitful discussiom that why it is wrong you start to keep reverting my edits not even open any discussion. I always open discussion if there is any problem in it. And after last involvement I refrained myself from that totally but you did not.You keep reverting my edits and bully other editors and their edits instead of giving them a chance. And the matter of incident, for that I want to say this incident is of huge notability and many politicians have commented on it and asked for strict action. How could mass harassment if this type be a small news for yo???I seriously request  to take a look as this editor is always behind me whatever edit I do. From here to wikimedia commons he keeps reverting and involving instead of tellimg why its wrong. This is a serious bullying for me now Edward Zigma (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The text was incomprehensible; I have removed it for that reason if no other. You are both edit warring: I suggest you work out some meaningful text here before reinstating it. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I want your WP:3PO on the matter. If you want to change the wordings you can do that.Edward Zigma (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This page has been on my watchlist for a while because it has repeatedly had sourced content, which presumably offends certain religious sensibilities, removed from it . However, that removal was - IMO - almost always censorship by POV-warriors. The page has been protected to prevent it. Right now there are a lot of editors working on the page, and I credit the majority of them with far more knowledge of the subject than I have, so I don't plan to get too much further involved at the moment - though it seems clear to me that there are still significant attempts being made to sanitise this page on purely religious grounds, and that should not be tolerated. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - This page is on a Hindu nationalist slogan, which is in current use. So, I can't see how can invoke WP:NOTNEWS. Everything here is news. And the various uses that the slogan is being put to should be covered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be honest and say we should remove all sections except Jai_Shri_Ram and merge that section into the lead as well. Concerning issue is that we don't need to specify every single incident where these 3 words were used since the lead is already clear about the types of incidents where they were used. I agree with Harshil619 that we are disregarding WP:NOTNEWS by keeping such sections which are all about the very recent events than providing overall description of this slogan. The sources on lead appear to have done.  M L 911 11:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why should we neglect the other usage of this term when its clear apart from religious uses this term is used in provoking riots, lynchings and now in sexual harassment. They slogan although religious is being used in various different places which I have already told.Edward Zigma (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it must not look like if you shouted this slogan while "provoking riots, lynchings and now in sexual harassment", then you can get yourself publicized on this page. Such information is not encyclopedic.  M L 911 10:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please add other notable uses of this slogan as well. That would be an acceptable way of balancing it instead of edit warring to censor valid article improvements.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * (responding to ping) Folks please calm down. The articles on slogans are expected to include notable uses of the slogan. Please see other articles of slogans. This indeed is a religious slogan and I see no reason why notable uses should be removed from this article. Regarding the objection of Harshil, I don't this this event is non notable, it has its own wikipedia article and has received widespread coverage. So I support to include this into the article. Edward Zigma Can you create a subsection below and add your proposed version of the content along with reliable sources as Dorsetonian mentioned, It might need some copy edit. We can also take and include suggestions from all on the final version before adding it back, to avoid edit wars. regards.  D Big X ray ᗙ  07:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * undo the edit citing that no consent has been made.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Edward Zigma and others, Here is the proposed version by Zigma copy edited by me. Please share your comments to improve this. After incorporating everyone's suggestions. This will be added back into the article. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You really expect me to accept an unsourced section on "religous"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , good catch, ref added. next ?  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC News isn't saying that "Jai Shri Ram" is a greeting. It lists related greetings, "Ram Ram", "Jai Sia Ram" and "Jai Ram Ji ki" (all of which I have no trouble with). The Economic Times blog post is wooly. It is vaguely alluding to such a greeting, without actually providing any evidence. Plenty of sources conspicously omit "Jai Shri Ram". I don't believe it was a greeting. Nor is it particularly "religious". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, we have a decent page on Ram Nam, which also omits it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All right Kautilya3, I am removing it until solid sources are found for it. that would need to be discussed in a seperate section. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Little words matter. It is "Shreeee Ram", the great Ram, the victor Ram, the hero Ram, the Sanskrit Ram, not every man's Ram. The VHP's Ram. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , agree, I wasn't really aware of these subtle differences before I read this print article. It was an eye opener indeed.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This one seems good. But we can change the use from "Was used" "is used" in devotional songs coz some good people still exist who use these religious slogans and give devotional message.Edward Zigma (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. lets wait for ML and Harshil to respond if they have any suggestions to improve this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * To chime in, it is very obvious would revert such contents with proper references because he has been pushing POV in similar articles! --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , let Harshil reply. Meanwhile please share your opinions if you support the proposed version below.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Anyone who follows Indian media knows how this slogan has been turned into a political slogan. It has been used widely for lynchings, hate crimes, and political dominance. However the religious slogan is different from the political slogan so I support this proposed version if we cannot have a different article like "Jai Shri Ram (politics)" or "Jai Shri Ram (political slogan)" . KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for sharing your kind opinion. Folks who have commented so far have shared that they are ok with this proposed version. Lets wait for one more day for ML and Harshil after which I will update the article with the below proposal.  D Big X ray ᗙ  15:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@All, Since no one else commented and the folks who have are ok with the proposed version. I have added this to the article, with one minor change that the 2 headers are merged into one. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

VHP's Ram
Here is a scholar trying to explain the meaning of "Jai Shri Ram":

I think it is ridiculous to describe this as having anything to do with Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed version

 * Uses

In 1992, during riots and Demolition of Babri Masjid,the same slogans were raised.
 * Violent incidents

In 2019, before his lynching, Tabrez Ansari was forced by the mob to chant religious slogans "Jai Shree Ram" and "Jai Hanuman".

On February 2020, in an incident of mass molestation and sexual harassment at Gargi College, the victims of harassment alleged that the perpetrators were chanting the slogan of "Jay Shree Ram"

Existence of the slogan in any significant manner, prior to BJP/VHP introduction
Did this expression even exist in any significant manner, prior to BJP/VHP introduction? I think the only focus of this article, (which I am going to write over the course of next few days), will be about folks from BJP using it as a war-cry against Muslims/Christians. I am seeing nearly nothing in scholarly literature, otherwise. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of Godric it is in the same league as Jai Mata Di, Jai Hanuman, Jai Ganesh, and are basically religious slogans that have existed for centuries and used in temples/religious processions/rituals. I have created another section below to discuss the same topic. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to add a section about historical usage of this slogan. It seems quite unfair to have only current day misuse of this slogan on the page. Jamailfaroukh (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Historical background
The history of the Rama cult is pretty complicated, and Sheldon Pollock's views are quite speculative. Yes, the growth of Rama cult coincided with the Muslim rule, but historians say that it didn't lead to any Hindu-Muslim conflict. The Muslim governors of Ayodhya were quite happy to support the Rama cult throughout the centuries. Only after Aurangzeb did the problems start. Even then, many sociological observers say that "Ram Ram" was equally a greeting used by the Hindus and Muslims of the region. The nawabs of Awadh again supported Rama worship in Ayodhya, and the temples mushroomed precisely during their time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide RS for your claims. As of Pollock's views, they seem notable enough to be included here. If any other reliable authority disputes them, his/her views can be added too. Bharatiya  29  12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are loads of sources given on the Ayodhya dispute page, the most important one being Henry Bakker's Ayodhya.
 * Note that the "Jai Shri Ram" slogan does not appear in Pollock's paper. Please share the exact quotes from either the paper or Daniyal's op-ed that support the content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The exact slogan might not appear, but the use of Ram's name as a war cry is still pretty relevant to this article. I am not being able to make a complete sense of your comment. What has the nawabs' support to Ram worship has to do with this article? I can see that you have a good knowledge of this matter, so please elaborate. Bharatiya  29  13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can provide a quote that substantiates "Ram's name as a war cry". At the moment, the content failed verification. I intend to delete it after giving you or any one else a chance to substantiate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * For the controversies surrounding Pollock's perspective, you can start with Talk:Hindus/Archive 3, and some summaries below:
 * Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya - who is a historian unlike Pollock, a literary scholar - wrote a full length critique of Pollock's essay. It is unfortunately not available online. Simply put, Pollock had cherry-picked his evidence and exaggerated its significance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya - who is a historian unlike Pollock, a literary scholar - wrote a full length critique of Pollock's essay. It is unfortunately not available online. Simply put, Pollock had cherry-picked his evidence and exaggerated its significance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya - who is a historian unlike Pollock, a literary scholar - wrote a full length critique of Pollock's essay. It is unfortunately not available online. Simply put, Pollock had cherry-picked his evidence and exaggerated its significance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Usage in violent incidents
This section is full of trivial mentions about the slogan. Unless such sources can be found which significantly cover the slogan's usage in violent scenarios, this section should be removed as per WP:NOTDIARY. Bharatiya 29  12:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have also reinstated the "Fake cases alleging usage of Jai Shri Ram" section. As long as a consensus is not achieved regarding how these two sections should be treated, it is better to present the whole picture in order to maintain a neutral and balanced point of view. Bharatiya 29  12:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources are aplenty. Some 20-odd scholarly sources are listed a few sections above. Please feel to peruse them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The only online-available scholarly source has only two passing mentions of the slogan. Not a significant coverage by any mean. Bharatiya  29  14:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "fake cases" section.
A new section is added. But it has no true sources. This new facthunt site seem lie full unreliable sources and a political bias. Should it be allowed? If we have true sources regarding this, then the section should be added but not with these unreliable sources. But this facthunt and other citations seems fishy. Edward Zigma (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN is the best place to go to if you are doubtful about the reliability of a source. Bharatiya  29  14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC) — has been blocked from editing. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this:
 * 1) "facthunt . in" is not a reputable news source. It is a crowdsourced website, and a cursory glance through it shows that it has a very clear political bias.
 * 2) When we include a section like this, even if we do it with the intent of providing a balanced point of view, we essentially minimize the damage that is described in the "Usage in Violent Incidents" section. Even a cursory glance through these two sections shows us that the scale of incidents described in these two sections differ enormously. The "Usage in Violent Incidents" section describes literal pogroms with dozens dead. The "Fake cases" section includes some limited instances where it is alleged that a victim claimed that a crowd used the slogan when it was not.
 * 3) If these minor incidents are included in "Fake cases", then every similar minor incident in which a mob actually did harass somebody using the slogan must be included in the "Usage in Violent Incidents" section in order to keep this fair. I am not suggesting that we do this because the length of the article would become enormous. Rather, we should remove the "Fake cases" section because describing these incidents does not inform the reader in any appreciable way about the usage of the slogan.
 * 4) Clearly, the "Fake cases" section does not belong on this Wikipedia page, at least in its current stage of development. I recommend deletion. If necessary, all relevant information in this section can be added to the "Usage in Violent Incidents" section with a simple sentence: "There have been some reports of non-violent incidents being associated with the slogan, in which the allegations were found to be false". Even in this case, better sources must be inserted.
 * I am taking the action of removing the "facthunt . in" sources and adding citation needed tags to the section, because that is the minimum necessary action that should happen while we discuss this. Postaltoad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * would you mind editing from your actual account? KartikeyaS (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fact Hunt (facthunt.in), according to its self-admission, was rejected from the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) in March 2020. Fact Hunt is a questionable source. I am unsure about the reliability of The Logical Indian (thelogicalindian.com). —  Newslinger  talk   07:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of The Logical Indian at . —  Newslinger  talk   07:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if The Logical Indian were to be a reliable source in general, the particular article being used here is entirely dependent on facthunt.in. So it cannot be accepted, that too for a huge section making a BIG DEAL and forming roughly half the page! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the content from The Logical Indian, as it was determined to be unreliable at . I've also removed the Aurangabad allegation, as the part that pertains to the section ("he admitted that he had fabricated the story") was unsourced. The remaining incidents in the "Fake cases alleging usage of Jai Shri Ram" are undue weight, as they are minor events with no significant consequences cited in a short listicle. —  Newslinger  talk   03:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
Whoever is the writer of this page, please get your facts right. Jai Shri Ram is NOT a war cry! It is a devotional chant made by devotees of hinduism meaning "Glory to Ram". It's supposed to give inner strength and peace to devotees or people in general who are facing a crisis and wish for a divine intervention.

Also, edit OR DELETE the part where you've stated that Jai Shri Ram chants were used in demolition of Babri Masjid, and other atrocities. Would you dare to write such a thing about the WAR CRY "Allahu Akbar", which is shouted by terrorists before or during a terrorist attack? Why do I feel like the editor is a muslim? DELETE those bullshit you wrote and stop spreading fake propaganda! 2409:4070:418E:F09A:0:0:28DD:28A1 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you seen Takbir? If it's a summary of WP:Reliable sources, it often fits on WP. You may also want to take a look at WP:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your own opinion is, as said, not a reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove: Jai Shri Ram is a greeting of sorts, and is not new, as claimed in the Wiki. There is no real reason in good faith to create this Wiki at all, if the root meaning and emotions of the "phrase" are conceitedly ignored, only to unjustly glorify the Hinduphobic angle where certain left-leaning media and instances have quoted and alleged misuse of this "slogan" at time of said instances. The poster or posting organisation clearly has no good or righteous intentions behind making this Wiki. And thus, it should not be kept up. It abuses the spirit of Wikipedia, to further a venomous political agenda of anti-Hindu forces. Pareshpandit (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If you think your argument is based on WP-policy, you are free to start a deletion discussion, see WP:BEFORE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
Citation Number 18 is non existent Crosscheckererer (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Fixed: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Jai Shree ram is not war cry but it the way to greet peoples PARTH SHRIVASTAVA (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
jai Shree ram is not a war cry but it is way to greet peoples so this term war cry should be removed as it hurt the sentiments of Hindus PARTH SHRIVASTAVA (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, please establish a consensus first before making a potentially controversial edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For the joy of all
This article is now written about on OpIndia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hindu version of Christian persecution complex? Hmm.... TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 11:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * How's that even relevant to our discussions here? It's not even a WP:RS (far from so). SerChevalerie (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * CPC is not, it's idle chatting. But OpIndias article may increase the editing of the article and the talkpage, that's a heads-up for editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually no, I generally never rely on OpIndia's Articles as they are fairly biased, sometimes hateful even. My activity on this page is solely because of the manner in which the article is written, and not its content. The very fact that there is more criticism in the article about the slogan than about its history, tells us how poorly the article has been written.Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you know a lot about its history, then please help us find WP:RS for the same so that we may add it. If you cannot contribute constructively you are not welcome here. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

About BJP
This article is edited by some fake editor and his claim is wrong so please take it down. Shucasm (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This article must be taken down for the false narratives, it is just propaganda article, to defame hindu gods. Lalitkumar97 (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is far from reality and truth. It falsely portrays the true legeny of Shree Ram and it's slogan Jai Shree Ram. Please correct the page. Yuganksharma (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * : Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article won't be taken down, especially for the reasons you have all stated. Regards, —Melbourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 03:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

regarding lead
Jai Sri Ram is an old chant. It's recent usage by communal forces shouldn't be in the lead. See Takbir, the political and warfare usage of it are not in the lead, they are in another section. If no one disagrees, I'll move it. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 01:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know. Sri Ram, Jay Ram, Jay Jay Ram is a line in a chant. But the exact phrase "Jai Shri Ram" doesn't occur in it. Even if it did, it is not being used as a chant now. Why would one chant Ram's name while carrying out lynchings, burnings and lootings?
 * "Jai Shri Ram" in that precise form was created by Ramanand Sagar and it is repeatedly used in the Ramayan series by Hanuman and other warriors to derive strength and defeat their enemies. That is precisely what a war cry is. Watch this episode for ten minutes and you can see: Ramayan Episode 69.
 * Ramanand Sagar took full credit for that:
 * The traditional greeting was and is "Jai Siya Ram".
 * No idea what he did as a result of that "note".
 * So, no, "Jai Shri Ram" was neither a chant nor a greeting. It was created as a battle cry and it continues to be used as one. So, obviously Sita has no place in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea what he did as a result of that "note".
 * So, no, "Jai Shri Ram" was neither a chant nor a greeting. It was created as a battle cry and it continues to be used as one. So, obviously Sita has no place in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, no, "Jai Shri Ram" was neither a chant nor a greeting. It was created as a battle cry and it continues to be used as one. So, obviously Sita has no place in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, no, "Jai Shri Ram" was neither a chant nor a greeting. It was created as a battle cry and it continues to be used as one. So, obviously Sita has no place in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh. I should have read the article and it's sources before jumping into this. Thanks for all the information. 👍 TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Ramanand Sagar production of Ramayana serial was very popular in time, but it is totally irrelevant to compare with it Ayodhya dispute and Jay Shri Ram slogan, because it was the local people (people of Ayodhya) that were fighting for their rights from one generation after another generation irrespective of their political leaning.

Most of people have lack of knowledge of the Awadhi culture, tradition and language, because they only know North India in conventional political terms like "Hindi belt" that's why they don't know that in most our local folk song, there is large number of chantings and greetings like Ram-Ram, Jai shri ram, sita-ram, Jai sita ram and etc in Awadhi language

223.180.180.221 —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020
The expression was used all over the world as a greeting (on the name of Dharma) for starting any conversation.[ Mamadharma (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The current description seems to be more descriptive. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

POV
I am afraid the background sections have overwhelmed the main body of the article. This is always a sign of WP:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair point I say, considering how I added the majority of the background. If I don't find anything significant about the slogan itself in some time, we could temporarily move the WP:UNDUE sections to the Talk page until the article can be balanced out. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Usage in false cases
I just went through the article's history and the talk page history and found that the chant's "usage in fake cases" section was removed because of lack of WP: RS. I did some research and and found several sources for the fake cases and all are Reliable sources. So I thought they might be helpful here.


 * Times of India
 * The Quint
 * DNA
 * Hindustan Times
 * Times of India
 * Firstpost
 * Times Now

I hope they are helpful. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  13:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what changes do you propose? SerChevalerie (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing any changes. I am saying this section should be re-added to the article to show that some incident about this slogan are false. This section was there in the article like few weeks ago but was removed because of lack of RS but now we have many. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  14:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:VNOTSUFF. You need to make a case for including any negative or false information because that is not what Wikipedia is about. We don't have enough information about the true cases as yet. So adding stuff about "false" cases would be WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By this logic, the whole "use in violent events" should be removed because these are very few events compared to the history of this slogan as per Wikipedia guidelines. And [this] says otherwise. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  14:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no history of the slogan other than in violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Said who? Your and my views does not hold any candle to wikipedia. It runs on several rules and regulations and not what you or me think. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , Kautilya3 outlined the sources in "regarding lead" section. Give it a read. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read everything and it is time this section should be added as one of the aspects of the "violent events" that is being talked about in the article. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  15:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to invite to look at this re-adding request of the section since he was involved in the discussion when it was removed because of lack of reliable sources. Krish  &#124;  Talk To Me  15:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

, you say that you are not proposing any changes and yet you insist that it should be added in the article. Further, you talk about the slogan's "history" but cite no RS for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like I did a mistake of commenting on this article as it's obvious you people don't want any help. As I said I have no interest in editing this article or any political or religious article. I only came here after I saw it trending on Twitter and thought to give my opinion. I have given sources for what you guys wanted few weeks ago and it's up to you if you want to use it or not. I won't be commenting here after this. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  16:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A murder
Ehsan Jafri was a Member of Parliament from Ahmedabad:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
, the following sources you added in Special:Diff/970602628 are questionable and/or self-published: Please don't cite unreliable sources like these into the article. —  Newslinger  talk   09:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * – Self-published website
 * – Self-published blog of an apparel and merchandise store
 * – Self-published blog
 * https://www.india-aware.com/national/delhi-violence-mob-kills-hindu-man-for-sporting-jai-shri-ram-sticker-on-bike/ – Website making claims regarding living persons with no evidence of editorial oversight
 * , The sources which are ocnsidered reliable, in general report against the majority, or if I may state more clearly, they are biased against the majority. It is a natural tendency. So we must always see what the other side has to say. Now the main problem of the article is that it contains more criticism than information. Moreover, the criticism is presented in the opening paragraph of the article. If I dump all my ideologies out from my head, then upon reading the intro para itself, I will think, that the Jai Shri Ram slogan is connected with riots and BJP. I am not saying that these sources report fake news. They report what is true. However they report selectively, hence the negativity. I am asking you to look into this.
 * Another thing I wanted to say was that, people are citing statements of journalists within the article. For example Rana Ayyub's statement. Now that is bad. We should not pick up someone's personal opinion and cite it into an encyclopedia article. This should be removed.
 * And you may think that I am repetitive, I apologise for that, but the article should have neutral Intro, Historical background, popular use and then the misuse of the slogan. Not the other way round.
 * Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The allegation that all reliable sources have a bias "against the majority" is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that has become a perennial talking point of OpIndia . OpIndia is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. India has no shortage of journalism that is favorable to the "majority", and some of those sources are considered reliable enough for Wikipedia in some cases. They're certainly better than the blog of an apparel store, which was cited in the edit above. —  Newslinger  talk   03:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article starts with a prejudice against Hinduism?
I know that a large number of sources have reported use of Jai Shree Ram in communal violence. And might have been used. But an encyclopedia article should tell first, what the thing is. What it is about. Why it came into existence. Why it is famous. Etc. However this article starts with a prejudice against the use of the slogan.

For many, the slogan is simply a short prayer. To remember the Hindu Deity Lord Rama and seek his blessings. The slogan wasn't intended to be used in communal violence. Ever. However the people who edited the article over time have made the slogan look like a war-cry used by the Hindu organizations and Political parties, used only at the time of riots and for polarising people.

If the article is o be truly neutral, it should explain the slogan in following manner: 1. Introduction: A neutral one. Should not include its use in riots or mass polarisation. 2. History: Should tell about the origins of the slogan. 3. Popular use: Should tell about the slogan use in the Ramanand Sagar Ramayan. 4. Negative Use(Preferably misuse): Here one may write about its use in incidents involving violence.

After this you will notice, that 90% of the sources cited are for pt. 4. This gives a clear indication that the article is more about the misuse/negative use of Jai Shree Ram than the slogan itself.

Please consider this. I am just trying to improve Wikipedia's articles. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposed order is fairly reasonable for the article body. However, the lead section of a well-developed article is a summary of the body, which means that the negative use or misuse would still be mentioned in the lead section. —  Newslinger  talk   11:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And for the rest, per WP-philosophy it's about bringing and using WP:RS about the expression Jai Shri Ram in a WP:DUE manner. Which is not always that easy. If you chose to read WP, you may encounter WP:DISC stuff. That doesn't in itself make it bad content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have any reliable sources that can witness your claims? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , as I have already mentioned, I am just asking to re-orient the article, so that it starts with a neutral introduction, then telling its history, then its popular use and then a misuse. Also it is very very uncommon to find a source that supports a religion, leave alone a religious slogan. So lets not talk about that. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * at this point, the "misuse" is more popular than whatever popular use you're thinking of. I realized this a few weeks ago while reading this page: I've never ever heard Jai Sri Ram by actual devotees. They use "Siya Ram/Sitaram" or "Sitapat Sri Ramachandra Ki Jay". Jai Sri Ram only seems to be used by fanatics. TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...... I am pretty sure the proper use of this slogan is million times bigger than its small "misuse" and please think before calling majority of Hindus who chant Jai Shri Ram as "fanatic". If you have not heard of its use by devotees that does not mean it it not used. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Generalization of communities must not be done on the basis of a handful of news articles.
 * , That's because no one will write in a news article that so and so person offered prayers by chanting Jai Shri Ram. Since the slogan is in hindi, it is often used in mass gatherings. When these mass gathering are for prayers or a satsang or a bhajan, it is natural that no news channel or site shall report it. But if it is in a violent/communal attack, then definitely reporting is bound to happen(That isn't wrong either). It is truly a misuse of the slogan. I chant it once, when I pray after bath. So I think that there will be one person you will have heard of chanting jai sri ram. Also rather focusing on its use, we should focus on how the article is written, as that is the point of discussion over hear. -- Parlebourbon3 (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You people are free to believe whatever you believe. But we are limited to reporting what the reliable sources say. So if you do not have any reliable sources that witness your supposed religious usage, I suggest you withdraw and leave this article in peace. Without RS, there is nothing you can achieve here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just explaining that to . he said that he had never heard of an actual devotee chanting Jai Shri Ram. Also I am not saying that you should not report what the reliable sources say. I am just expressing my concern that the reliable sources might use the liberty of their 'reliableness' and may report only the negative about the topic, making the topic as whole negative. Also has provided list of reliable sources and news articles, where misreporting of misuse of the Jai Shri ram Slogan was done. i believe this must be incorporated into the article. Also the article should begun with a neutral intro atleast. Rest I leave it in your hands, since you are far more experienced and less biased in terms of editing. However please ensure that people like  do not generalize an entire community, just to prove their point. that hurts. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I just gave several WP: RS below about its usage in false cases which should be re-added since that time editors could not find any sources. I am happy to help. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  14:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * False cases are of no interest to us. Only true cases are. We are not a "fact-checking" website. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly those false cases were examined and fact checked by the media publications/police etc. Wikipedia guidelines say that all sides of views should be included in articles and ignoring this side is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I am appalled to hear this from you since this was a section just a few weeks ago but was removed because of lack of RS but know we have and you are saying it cannot be added? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  14:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have opened a separate discussion for this topic, let's discuss it there instead of hijacking this thread. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

this is not a war cry ... its a mantra recited by hindus for spiritual purpose. why this bias towards hindus by Wikipedia Nemish1p (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger: I hate to break it to you #Wikipedia fanbois: "consensus" is not possible on Wikipedia. It stopped being something that can be taken seriously, I'd say, in 2002. You really do need to develop a new and better way of deciding disputes; "consensus" is silly propaganda. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Larry Sanger isn't exactly a credible source: he hasn't been affiliated with Wikipedia since 2002, and he now spends his time promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory on Twitter. Consensus is a policy that allowed Wikipedia to obtain its current level of prominence whether Sanger likes it or not. —  Newslinger  talk   06:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only hindi expression
' Jai Shri Ram ' is not only hindi expression but also a nepali expression to praise the lord Ram. Should be edited. Nepal knowledge (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please share reliable sources that state the same, so that we may add it here. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Indic languages share large amounts of vocabulary. Every "Hindi" word/phrase is probably used in like 10 other languages. Is it feasible to add them even in the unlikely scenario that RS exist to prove it? TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nepali and Hindi both are derived from Sanskrit language. So some word/phrase can be similar. Since Nepal and India are only (most probably) countries with hindu majority, and Nepali and Hindi are their national language respectivly, including Nepali and Hindi will be fine. Nepal knowledge (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

, Why did you replace 'Hindu Chant' with 'Hindi expression' ? 'Jai shri Ram' is common saying among all hindus, but all hindus don't speak hindi. And also in reference, it is referred as 'Hindu Chant'. 'hindi expression' should be replaced with 'hindu chant'. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I had moved it to the "Religious" origins section, but as pointed out, the source doesn't clearly mention it as a "Hindu chant" anywhere except for the title. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

, it seems you don't want to replace 'hindi expression'. The source is more than enough to replace 'hindi expression' with 'hindu chant'. And 'Jai Shri Ram'is not referred as 'hindi expression' in the source. As I previously mentioned, 'Jai Shri Ram' is common saying among all the hindus, but all hindus don't speak hindi. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he said that he didn't want to say "Hindu chant" because I objected to it. The BBC source says "Hindu chant" in the title, but there is no further mention in the body. It calls it a "slogan". Chants and slogans are quite different. "Expression" is quite neutral and can mean many things, including greetings, slogans, chants, war-cries, and what not.
 * Meanwhile, I haven't seen you provide any evidence for its Nepali usage or its significance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ,Thanks for explanation. But scenario are different in Nepal, we only use 'Jai Shri Ram' for worshipping or praising lord Ram, not for slogans and war cries.

So articles related to this are rarely published. I will provide if I find any. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Dubious
I am contesting the claim sourced to Raksha Kumar's column in South China Morning Post. The article provides no evidence for the claim that "Jai Shri Ram" was "once a greeting" and contradicts multiple scholarly sources that say otherwise. We have no idea of the credentials of the author or the basis of her claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. It's the only RS that I could find so I added it there. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request
Please replace "war cry" in the lede with a more neutral term. War cry can also mean "a call made to rally soldiers for battle" according to Google’s dictionary. A more appropriate term could be "rallying call" as the phrase is also used by the BJP merely to rally voters to their cause, and also used to rally some nuts into committing crimes.45.251.33.60 (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The terminology of "war cry" is evidenced in multiple reliable sources. See the section above titled ".. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay then, . Maybe this surge in right-wing editors adding their opinions on the talk page as well could be stopped or at least slowed down if you guys added an FAQ template resolving every vandal’s complaints (like the one that put on Talk:OpIndia)? 45.251.33.60 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 45.251.33.60 has drafted an FAQ at . The FAQ is now included on the top of this page, and is visible to all readers who are not using the mobile versions of Wikipedia. I've adjusted the FAQ to mention Jai Shri Ram directly, link to applicable policies and guidelines, and be consistent with these polices and guidelines. Please feel free to make further improvements at Talk:Jai Shri Ram/FAQ. —  Newslinger  talk   05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who has been keeping an eye on this article for well over a year in order to combat the repeated censorship of it, I find myself surprised to agree with the IP's edit request The reasoning is correct - it is a non-neutral term, and a neutral one has been proposed which is perhaps better supported by the references - for example, where the term is used in two places in the article body, only the first is referenced with anything close to using that term, and then it is misquoted: Ram's name [was made into] the rallying cry of [the] movement [which] to worried British officials was a "war cry" (my emphases). Dorsetonian (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you have confused the 1920's slogan with the 1990's slogan, which are quite differnt. There are no "British officials" now. There are only scholars and commentators. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the term "war cry" in the section Rama symbolism (1920s) misquotes its reference and should be replaced with "rallying cry", which is what is actually stated. The lead - as you say - refers to later use, and appears to have no references in the article to support it. Unless the term is shown to have been used in an actual war, "war cry" is purely and simply an exaggeration which is inflammatory and non-neutral. At most we can state that it is a "so-called" war cry, and not use the term ourselves. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article isn't saying "Jai Shri Ram" is a war cry. It's saying that a political party adopted the phrase as a war cry. There's a distinct difference between these two things. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead says [The BJP] went on to use it as a war cry. That is us saying it was used by them as a war cry. Clearly it has not been, because they have never used it in war. At best, the original author used in an idiomatic sense, but an encyclopaedia requires scholarly precision - especially in the lead, and especially when it is clearly non-neutral. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "war cry" means it is used in war. The OED says:

Cambridge English Dictionary says :

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But Google's dictionary (which I mentioned first) does give the military meaning first, and while I agree that OED & CED are more prestigious, more people will use Google first, . 45.251.33.234 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide the link. Google doesn't write dictionaries, as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Google pulls the definition from Oxford Dictionary, which states : SerChevalerie (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how lexico.com can be a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's the official host for Oxford Dictionaries, I remember seeing an old link of Oxford redirecting to lexico at History-sheeter. Will have to research. In any case, I believe the issues have been addressed here. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want to mean majority of Indians today wakes up in morning and greets other as Jai Shri Ram as a war cry with each other. This is violation of WK:NPOV. It should be removed. Jai Shri Ram is a pious word used by Hindus before start of day or any work.

killing people in the name of Ram is wrong but why they generalize all Ram bhakts?? Ram bhakts don't use it as war cry

According to this generalization based logic, we can also say that Ola hu uber is a slogan used before killing kafirs Basu021 (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

According to this generalization based logic, we can also say that Ola hu uber is a slogan used before killing kafirs....

All terrorist Group use allah hu akbar befor killing innocent peoples .. So accroding to your logic allah hu akbar is a terrorist slogan and linked with terrorism ? Basu021 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You made this same point in the section above. It has been noted. It does not help to keep splitting the discussion into a new section per point. Same goes for everyone creating new sections here: please keep your thoughts on this narrow matter in the existing section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * it sure is, as recorded in the Takbir article. Also, thread title doesn't really match the content of your post. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 10:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020
"and went on to use it as a war cry, for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths" this is highly offensive to hindu faith. Please remove this. AjayROjha (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. There are words and phrases in every faith that are embraced by some members and yet are offensive to other members of the same faith. The information you want removed is well-sourced and documented; therefore, this encyclopedia has no choice but to bring this information to all readers. It is regretful that the information is offensive to some. See also... Takbir.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)