Talk:Jai Shri Ram/Archive 2

A pamphlet
This is the translation of a leaflet from the VHP Hindu nationalist group distributed in Gujarat during disturbances.


 * Jai Shri Ram! Wake up! Arise! Think! Enforce! Save the country! Save the religion!
 * Economic boycott is the only solution! The anti-national elements use the money earned from the Hindus to destroy us!
 * They buy arms! They molest our sisters and daughters! The way to break the backbone of these elements is: An economic non- cooperation movement.
 * Let us resolve
 * 1 From now on I will not buy anything from a Muslim shopkeeper!
 * 2 I will not sell anything from my shop to such elements!
 * 10 I shall not receive any education or training from a Muslim teacher.
 * Such strict economic boycott will throttle these elements! It will break their backbone! Then it will be difficult for them to live in any corner of this country. Friends, begin this economic boycott from today! Then no Muslim will raise his head before us!
 * Did you read this leaflet? Then make 10 photocopies of it, and distribute it to our brothers. The curse of Hanumanji be on him who does not implement this, and distribute it to others! The curse of Ramchandraji also be on him! Jai Shri Ram!
 * Did you read this leaflet? Then make 10 photocopies of it, and distribute it to our brothers. The curse of Hanumanji be on him who does not implement this, and distribute it to others! The curse of Ramchandraji also be on him! Jai Shri Ram!

(Signed) A true Hindu patriot

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , could it go in the "Transition" section? SerChevalerie (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, this is well beyond "transition" stage. This is Gujarat riots stage, by which time Jai Shri Ram had turned into an AK-47. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Violent incidents", then? SerChevalerie (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The "transition period" was between 1988 and 1992, during which both "Jai Siya Ram" as well as "Jai Shri Ram" were used, apparently the former as a greeting and a "password", and the latter more as a call to arms. By the time the Babri Masjid was demolished, "Jai Shri Ram" took over. After 1992, it was a victory slogan, an invitation to participate in the Hindu Rashtra, and an imposition. If one did not respond to a VHP greeting of "Jai Shri Ram" with an equal response, he wasn't "Indian". The Gujarat VHP delegates that went to Ayodhya for Ram Shila Pujan taunted everybody along the way to utter "Jai Shri Ram". Anybdoy that did not obey was beaten and stabbed with trishuls. And they did the same on their return journey, including at Godhra. Thus were the 2002 Gujarat riots provoked.

Here is Jan Breman, who has done an enormous amount of work in Gujarat and has a solid understanding of it:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That is greetings and not a war cry. That is a greeting on pamphlet same way as Zakir Naik or oother hate spreader utter Aslam Walequm that does not make it into a war cry. Hope this clears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you mention the source for the taunting on the return journey? I found this from 2002. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Jyothi Punwani source in my unfinished attempt to rewrite the Godhra train burning page. Your source has much more detail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , can either or both of these be incorporated into the "Coinage" section? I've taken the liberty to add Berman's quote. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, please use both the sources. It should be in the violent incidents section, with a new subsection for 2002 Gujarat riots. The content should also go in there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , will do. Also, what's your source for the "password" bit? SerChevalerie (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is in the "transition" period, which I will take care of. It is a bit confused and the sources are not great. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020
I requested removal of an offensive sentence and I got a reply "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.". This is the worst reason to keep offending a billion people with biased opinion based article reference and click bait online links. The reason that other religions have war-cries used while killing people doesnt mean the same fundamental applies to Hinduism. Ramayan is thousands of years old and 'Jai Shri Ram' should not be defined by few biased articles. And listing articles doesnt make the source authentic. Did the moderator check the authenticity of each article ? Did the moderator consult diverse source of opinion in making the decision that the references are applicable ? AjayROjha (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the authenticity and reliability of each source is checked. All editors are welcome to check them, registered or not. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, this page is not about Ramayana or Rama. It is entirely about the slogan "Jai Shri Ram" and how it is used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you have reliable sources to expand this article then please provide them so that we may start a more constructive discussion. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Jai Raghunandan
Jai Raghunandan, Jai Siyaram; Janakivallabha Sitaram is a line in a bhajan. Does anybody know who wrote this and when?

We have evidence that it was being sung by pilgrims in 1920s.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sheldon Pollock
I have contested Sheldon Pollock's theories in previous discussion. I think they are speculative and have been essentially disproved. So I will get rid of them when I get around to revising the background section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair point. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

TO wikipedia
remove its reference as a war cry... it is certainly not .. infact its a mantra used by us in temples Nemish1p (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In Nepal, people say 'Jay Shri Ram' while worshipping lord Ram. But in India, hindu nationalists organizations have misused it to torture other religion's people. Bhattarai1237 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove as a war cry as this is author's opinion and never used in any battle. Different Regiments in India have different War Cry and slogans so this should be removed in violation of WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very much a war cry. Agree with bhattarai1237. Abbasquadir (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2020
It has been taken into serious notice the Anti-Hindu nature of the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_Shri_Ram" The British Broadcasting Channel's vocabulary is no attestation to the false accusations of Military alignment of the the referred slogan. Moreover the claim can be made that the sole purpose of first referring to the article "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48882053" is to cause regardlessly hurt to Hindu sentiments.

I suggest change of "or for projection of varied faith-centered emotions" to "or for the projection of adherent belief in Shri Ram" I suggest removal of the link referred to in line 1, i.e "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48882053" as it holds literally no correlation with the statement of "Victory to Shri Ram" or "Glory to Shri Ram" other than Hinduphobic provocation.

I do understand the necessity of inclusion of the slogans misusage, but given that in subsection 3 "Usage", 3.1 "Violent incidents" there exists already that information I suggest replacement of "The expression was used by the Indian Hindu nationalist organisations Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their allies, which embraced the slogan in the late 20th century, as a tool of increasing the visibility of Hinduism in public spaces and went on to use it as a war cry, for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths.[28]" from the Introduction to Subsection 3 "Usage", 3.1 "Violent incidents".

I suggest change of "Usage" to "Usage by extremists", in subsection 3. Usage.

This request has been made on the basis of similar discontent caused to Muslims readers who brought down a change in the introduction of the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir" "curprev 00:07, 4 August 2020‎ 119.30.32.171 talk‎ 33,778 bytes -1,435‎  Removed irrelevant and Islamophobic biases from the beginning of the article, including the impertinent mention of terrorism and politicised usage which are not relevant to the paragraph or paragraphs other than to perpetuate an Islamophobic bias. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit references removed [accepted by Mathglot]" Aditya Nirmale (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I EXPECT AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE. Also refer: https://theprint.in/india/biased-anti-hindu-campaign-begins-against-wikipedia-after-it-urges-indians-to-donate/472980/


 * Can you please numerically list out the exact changes? It's a bit unclear what exactly you want and where. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , : It is unclear exactly what changes you wish to see and where. Further, please establish a consensus for major alterations like this one before using the template. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Add a CELEBRATION subsection under USAGE section
Jai Shri Ram is also used during the celebration Anonymous2611 (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please share reliable sources for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (1)https://m.hindustantimes.com/world-news/bhajans-jai-shri-ram-chants-at-times-square-to-celebrate-bhoomi-poojan-at-ayodhya/story-4m58y9SU3S5uYSpWqlWlhP.html
 * (2)https://scroll.in/video/943174/watch-following-ayodhya-verdict-lawyers-at-the-supreme-court-chant-jai-shri-ram
 * Anonymous2611 (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SerChevalerie didn't you ask for WP:RS?? I provided RS, When are you going to add it? Anonymous2611 (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I have a life outside of Wikipedia too. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lmao when did I ask you to do it immediately? Or did I say you shouldn't live your life outside of Wikipedia. As a fellow Wikipedian, I simply asked you when you are going add it??? Also aren't you the one who created this page??? That's why I asked you but you are just being salty or you don't want to improve this page. I should not have asked you. Also Don't ask for Rs if you aren't going to use them or don't have any interest on them. ThanksAnonymous2611 (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, you incessantly asked him "SerChevalerie didn't you ask for WP:RS?? I provided RS, When are you going to add it??" -- merely an hour after your own message. So his response to you was justified. Be patient, we're all volunteers here, and there's no need to time each other. Secondly, each subsection of "Usage" relies on more than two sources for verification -- so the least you could do would be to provide more sources which support the content you'd like to add in, and ensure that the coverage is not trivial/passing mentions of Jai Shri Ram . Thank you, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

MelbourneStar ☆ are you kidding me? Do you know why I asked him? You should check the timeline of this talk page. I didn't ask him incessantly (thanks for letting me this word I didn't knew this word). He replied me in the other discussion but he didn't reply me in this discussion. That's why I asked. Also those sources are meeting every criteria mentioned in WP:RS and in WP:RS, there isn't anything mentioned about how many rs needed to be a content to be added in the article. What's needed is the content should be important for the article and Celebration content is indeed important. Still only for you I'm providing more sources. 1)https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/new-york-ram-mandir-billboard-shines-at-iconic-times-square-amidst-bhajans-and-jai-shri-ram-chants/videoshow/77386342.cms 2)https://www.thehitavada.com/Encyc/2020/8/6/City-reverberates-with-chants-of-Jai-Shri-Ram.html I can mention here other rs but they all have similar content, So I'm not adding them. Thanks and If you can add this celebration Usage, I'll be happy Anonymous2611 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering you want this section -- the onus would be on you to ask, you to find consensus, you to do the necessary research behind it. Please don't get confused about that, because that's just a standard expectation on you that doesn't just relate to this article, but every article on Wikipedia (or perhaps anything in life) -- if you want a change, it is your responsibility to chase that up.
 * I'm not disputing whether the sources provided are RS or not, my concern is that the news articles provided are only passing mentions of Jai Shri Ram and do not explicitly make the connection that you're making; see WP:TRIVIALMENTION. I would be more sympathetic to giving the "Jai Shri Ram-celebration" aspect the same kind of attention in this article as it garners in those news articles: which is a sentence, if that --- not a paragraph. In response to your comment about the paragraph not needing to cite more than two sources, well Wikipedia policy is that the content is verifiable – if you're unable to create a paragraph adhering strictly to what the sources say (and have to make your own connections) then yes, you need to find more sources. Otherwise, it would tell me that the connection you are trying to establish is not a significant one, and hence, WP:UNDUE.
 * I would be open to a paragraph, but I'm personally not seeing the means to making that happen with the sources provided. I would appreciate if other editors weighed in. —Melbourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 15:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , no I did not create this article. No, I don't owe you anything, and yes, I can take as long as I want to reply to a specific thread. As I said, I have a life outside Wikipedia too, so I answered to the thread in which we could reach a quicker WP:CONSENSUS.
 * The sources you shared are good enough to be included in the article (which I have done now that I had free time to look at them) but they don't justify a section on "Celebration" on their own. Maybe in the future, we could rewrite a chunk of the article to properly represent the slogan's closeness to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, but for now this is good enough... If you find any more sources, feel free to share them. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources you shared are good enough to be included in the article (which I have done now that I had free time to look at them) but they don't justify a section on "Celebration" on their own. Maybe in the future, we could rewrite a chunk of the article to properly represent the slogan's closeness to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, but for now this is good enough... If you find any more sources, feel free to share them. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Why I'm saying this is important is because it was displayed in Time square billboard ( which held a significant importance in the world of commercial and its wikipage is far more lengthy than this page). Also It's used in Supreme Court of India which is the supreme judicial house in India. Both of them hold high status. It shows the importance of this slogan among Hindus. Thanks SerChevalerie for adding this and if you can add that 'Times square billboard' (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square) I'll be more than happy and I apologise if I insulted you in any way accidentally although I didn't mean to.Anonymous2611 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Times Square bit has more significance in the article on Ram Mandir, Ayodhya, where it is already mentioned. Just sticking to WP:DUE here; if you find better sources that describe the slogan's significance on greater detail then do share. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths.
This statement is too broad and seems to indicate that it is being used only to perpetrate violence. The chant Jai Shri Ram is used on many religious pious occasions including in temples, as a greeting every day by millions of people worldwide so above statement should be removed or made more nuanced for example channge to: "The slogan has been used at times during perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.184.17 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does not mean that it is only used to perpetrate violence. But certainly it is its most prominent use, as per sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Need to change some incidents in Violence incidents
In the events leading up to the Godhra train burning of February 2002, supporters of the Gujarat VHP and its affiliated organisations like the Bajrang Dal forced Muslims to chant "Jai Shri Ram" on their return journey from Ayodhya, including at Godhra. They were returning in the Sabarmati Express from the ceremony at the Ram Janmabhoomi.

This needs to be changed. According to the reference [41] and [42], this is a post Godhra Train burning incident. In [41], It is stated that they were travelling to Ayodhya not returning from Ayodhya. There isn't any mention of ceremony at the Ram Janmabhoomi in 2002 or VHP members with that incident. I hope someone will see this thread and change those sentences into In the one of the post Godhra Train Incident of February 2002, Workers of Bajrang Dal attacked and forced Muslims to chant Jai Shri Ram. They were traveling to Ayodhya in the Sabarmati Express. Anonymous2611 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hadn't noticed the direction of the train, thanks. The timeline seems fine though: the train burning was on 27 Feb and the journey to Ayodhya was on 25 Feb. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Hinduphobic content in introduction
Pointers: 1)I suggest change of "or for projection of varied faith-centered emotions" to "or for the projection of adherent belief in Shri Ram" 2)I suggest removal of the link referred to in line 1, i.e "https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48882053" 3)I suggest change of "Usage" to "Usage by extremists", in subsection 3. Usage. 4)I suggest replacement of "The expression was used by the Indian Hindu nationalist organisations Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their allies, which embraced the slogan in the late 20th century, as a tool of increasing the visibility of Hinduism in public spaces and went on to use it as a war cry, for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths.[28]" from the Introduction to Subsection 3 "Usage", 3.1 "Violent incidents". I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR Hi,, I have moved your comment to a new thread. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The sources do not support that exactly. Could you help us by sharing some reliable sources for the same?
 * 2) BBC is a WP:NEWSORG, you'll have to make a much better argument for the removal.
 * 3) Could you please justify, keeping WP:NPOV in mind?
 * 4) Could you elaborate and be a bit more clear?
 * In addition, I would also like to hear what makes this content "Hinduphobic". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Credible sources as was required:

1) https://theprint.in/india/biased-anti-hindu-campaign-begins-against-wikipedia-after-it-urges-indians-to-donate/472980/

2) #Now coming to BBC(Keeping WP:NPOV in mind ). I do not question the correctness of the article but rather I would like to debate on the positioning of the reference. If #noticed the BBC reference https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48882053" has been placed in line 1, where it is completely irrelevant to the subject. The article says #"The Hindu Chant that became a murder cry". Blantant left-leaning hinduphobic title that is. If you can clearly tell meWhy has that article been referred to in the first line #where it is completely irrelevant satisfactorily I will give up my claim.

Why I feel this content is Hinduphobic?
 * Firstly, I would like to draw your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir. In this very article a man named Ashish.awasthi.7 had made changes to the article which #have been removed on the bases of quoting "Removed irrelevant and Islamophobic biases from the beginning of the article, including the impertinent mention of terrorism and #politicised usage which are not relevant to the paragraph or paragraphs other than to perpetuate an Islamophobic bias"{Refer revision history}.
 * Now, this is my very argument. When Allah hu Akbar's military stance can be removed on the basis of Islamophobia, so can Jai Shri Ram's, on the basis of Hinduphobia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Nirmale (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you please fix the numbering, it's getting incoherent again. If this persists we'll have to open separate threads for every argument. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead of Takbir is currently discussed at Talk:Takbir. Per WP:OTHER, the "this article must resemble that article in this particular manner" - argument is not a good argument on WP, though the articles may very well end up with similar WP:LEADS, time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , if the only argument you can come up with for the allegation that it is "Hinduphobic" is to cite what some other Wikipedians said at some other article, that suggests that you don't really have an argument.
 * And your supposed source for item (1) nowhere supports your claim of Jai Shri Ram being the "projection of adherent belief in Shri Ram". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As to your point (2), the BBC source is cited for the content of the first sentence. I suggest you read the first sentence, and then go look in the source to see whether it is supported or not.
 * On the whole, I am afraid you are not raising anything of substance here, and merely wasting our time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At least you guys can implement his suggestion no. 3 to change the Usage to Usage by Extremist. If you won't even do that then it's clear that you really want to keep this article as it is, you don't want to improve the article and are violating https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view by not Making Necessary Assumptions which is mentioned under Handling Neutrality Dispute Section. Anonymous2611 (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't blatantly calling the BJP as "extremists" be an even bigger violation of WP:NPOV? It currently simply says "Violent incidents". Why do you think that violates NPOV? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the second para in the lead it is clearly mentioned that VHP and BJP used Jai Shree Ram as War cry and for perpetration of communal Atrocities against other faith people. That's the work of extremists. According to you that's not the violation of WP:NPOV Anonymous2611 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's properly attributed to BJP and VHP, so it's not violating WP:NPOV. Please see the sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked all the references. There's not single mention that tells BJP and VHP used Jai Shri Ram as War Cry or for perpetration of communal atrocities. Those mob lynching are done by extremists. Even in this article where it is mentioned Jai shree Ram as Murder cry, there isn't even a single mention VHP(only mentioned that PM Modi from BJP and some other references which is not related to that mob lynching)https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48882053. That's also the violation of WP:NPOV. If you have any WP:RS in which it is mentioned that BJP or VHP has done any communal atrocities against people of other faiths, please provide me. Otherwise change that something else and don't ask me what type of change you want?? You guys are professional Wikipedians and I'm just recently joined Wikipedia and still learning. Anonymous2611 (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. I have modified the wording so that agency for communal violence is not attributed to VHP/BJP. But we all know it is a thin line there. It is a VHP slogan. If people use it in violence, VHP becomes responsible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks Kautilya3 for understanding. But I don't agree to hold VHP as responsible for the use of the slogan in violence. It'll same as holding Prophet Mohammad responsible for the use of Allah hu akbar(https://www.dictionary.com/browse/allahu-akbar#:~:text=In%20the%20Islam%20religion%2C%20Allahu,of%20Badr%20in%20624%20CE). Also don't call them who use these words for violence, they are extremists. Also can you add RamJanmobhoomi(link it to the RamJanmobhoomi page of wiki) Movement after the war cry word in the second para.(https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/ram-mandir-bhoomi-pujan-10-forgotten-champions-of-ayodhya-movement-1707859-2020-08-05).Also can you simplify the second para according to MOS:AVOIDBOLD? I think it is kinda complicated. Again thanks! not many people acknowledge beginner Wikipedians.Anonymous2611 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

, I think we've covered most of what you had suggested. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement is mentioned in more detail in the "Coinage" section.

, in addition to what K3 and Grabergs said, I'd like to mention that the lead of Takbir cannot be used as precedence here since there is no clear WP:CONSENSUS over it. Maybe if a strong enough case is made over there we might reconsider, but in any case you will have to achieve a clear consensus for this change. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The important word is War Cry. If you are using war cry, then I think it'll be more better if 'RamJanmobhoomi movement' to be added after it. For example ...War cry during RamJanmobhoomi movement . Otherwise remove war cry into simply into 'used in rallies '. I hope my point is being cleared. It's not necessary though. Also thanks for the taking my suggestions.If any one can add 'by extremists after 'The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths ' in the second para in the lead. Thanks[User:Anonymous2611|Anonymous2611]] (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, I see your point, but the sources cited don't support this exactly (see WP:OR): war cry during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement doesn't make sense since it has been used after that, too. The slogan has since then been employed by extremists for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths is not what the sources say exactly but could be interpreted that way. I'll let others weigh in. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I have never seen the word "extremists" employed in this context. Even if it were, it won't cover all the instances. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SerChevalerie I couldn't find where BJP and VHP used it as a Battle cry after the movement. If you want to mention that some celebs wrote letter to Pm Modi to stop misusing it as war cry, they are mentioning about its usage by the extremist group not by BJP or VHP. If you are saying that BJP or VHP used it after the Ram Janmobhoomi movement, I think there aren't any rs which has mentioned that or intended to mention. War Cry has different meanings in wikipedia and Google. As the word linked to wikipage meaning, I don't think it is used after Ram Janmobhoomi movement. If there is any RS mentioning it or indicating towards it, please provide me. And I think

The slogan has since then been employed by extremists for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths should be better under WP:MNA. "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Also if this slogan isn't used by extremists, then by whom? We already discarded BJP or VHP. Is it used for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths by whoever says Jai shri Ram? I don't think so. We can add the word Extremists to ensure that we are drawing a line between Extremists and Hindus who chants Jai shri ram under WP:MNA to get WP:NPV. Still as you mentioned we should weigh others inputs in this matter. Anonymous2611 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Then by whom?" That is for the Indian government to investigate and tell us. But it never does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 okay then if a person rob a bank, you won't call him a robber? You should check this Extremists and also check Google translation. Then tell me if my point is valid or not. If we can draw a line between them and the hindus, then why shouldn't we with WP:MNA? If we are lossing anything or violating any wiki policy, then I won't argue back. Also I don't think anyone going to give their feedback. Also separate the source references of second para of the lead section between the two sentences, so to avoid any confusions.Thanks Anonymous2611 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a WP:FORUMy debate. On Wikipedia, we defer to the WP:RS. I am not prepared to use WP:LABELs like "extremists" unless the reliable sources do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Idk why articles don't use 'Extremists'. It's clear that they are extremists. Still I found some articles with the same content as we already have but they used the word Extremists.

1)https://en.baaghitv.com/amp/hindu-extremists-torture-18-year-old-for-not-saying-jai-shri-ram/ 2)http://muslimmirror.com/eng/muslim-youth-attacked-by-bajrang-dal-goons-for-refusing-to-chant-jai-shri-ram/ 3)https://m.indiaaheadnews.com/article/jharkhand-muslim-man-beaten-for-hours-forced-to-chant-jai-shree-ram-dies-332825/332825 4)https://m.thewire.in/article/video/watch-jai-shri-ram-as-a-political-slogan-is-a-cover-for-violence/amp 5)http://www.coastaldigest.com/news/88588-hindutva-extremists-force-muslim-youths-to-eat-cow-dung-chant-jai-shri-ram-cops-arrest-victims 6)https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/bj9av5/hindu-extremists-push-a-muslim-off-a-train-attack-another-for-not-chanting-jai-shri-ram In every article it's mentioned Hindu extremists is mentioned.Most of the sources are of same cases but the Extremists is used. Also if we still can't add it, then use something else that will draw a line between them and the hindus who chants 'Jai Shri Ram' only to show faith Lord Ram.You didn't say anything about "Also separate the source references of second para of the lead section between the two sentences, so to avoid any confusions"Anonymous2611 (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the perpetrators in specific intances have been labelled as "extremists", that doesn't prove that all the events were also carried out by "extremists". The Wire video that you linked, by Apoorvanand, a Delhi University professor, does not actually mention "extremists" anywhere. In fact, quite the opposite.
 * We don't have any source that talks about "the hindus who chants 'Jai Shri Ram' only to show faith Lord Ram". I doubt if such Hindus even exist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why do think most hindus who don't use it for violence say Jai shri ram if they don't use to it to show Faith? Do you even know it is used in many Bhanjans and what does a bhajan mean? Why people do bhajans? Jai Shri Ram being used in Hindu Bhajans means that Hindus use it to show faith. It's upto the believers who practise that faith to decide it.
 * Also in the The wire article, it is mentioned 'Right winged Extremists'. I don't know if you actually read it or not. Looks like you don't want to add the word Extremists, So I won't argue again. But ADD A WORD that will draw the line between those who it for violence and those who don't use it for perpetration. Also in the lead section, it isn't required to cover up ALL the instances but to give a brief about the important topics. I hope you will do this much favour to the Hindu community.Anonymous2611 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, you are again slipping into a WP:FORUMy debate. Sources please! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Apoorvanand's Masterclass
During the discussion above, claimed that the video speech of Apporvanand (a professor of Delhi University) on The Wire said that the violent incidents associated with Jai Shri Ram were carried out by "extremists". With the help of a friend, I have now created a transcript of his speech. Not only is Anonymous2611's claim completely false, but the speech is very revealing in what it actually is: "Recall in Lok Sabha elections only a specific party leaders (BJP) were saying Jai Shri Ram. When people asked why they were saying that slogan, they claimed, in some parts of India it is not allowed to say Jai Shri Ram, so they are reclaiming the right to shout the Jai Shri Ram slogan.

In oath ceremony of Lok Sabha. Owaisi was heckled by BJP members shouting Jai Shri Ram. In Jharkhand Tabrez was asked to say Jai Shri Ram during lynching. Did you recall the election rally and oath ceremony? The slogan travelled from election rally to Lok Sabha to Jharkhand and other places where lynching happened.

Recently many incidents happened with Jai Shri Ram. People will claim that these are different incidents. And yet Jai Shri Ram is the common thing in all of these incidents.

All these people (Muslims) are being forced to say Jai Shri Ram and then attacked if they are refusing. Jai Shri Ram has become a violent slogan in itself, as it is used to insult Muslims.

Saying that Hindus are saying Jai Shri Ram as reclaiming it as a right is a lie. Jai Shri Ram was invented while running a campaign against Muslims. Recall The Babri demolition. Jai Shri Ram was popularized at that time, during the Rath Yatra by Advani. Wherever he went, there were violent acts against Muslims.

In Bihar when Advani reached Patna, there were Hindus armed and shouting Jai Shri Ram, and forcing Muslims to chant Jai Shri Ram. His Muslim reporter friend was also forced to chant Jai Shri Ram. He complied to save his life.

Jai Shri Ram is not about the glory of Ram but it is a political slogan. it is to insult and degrade the Muslims.

Hindus to greet each other said, Jai Ram ji ki, Ram-ram or Jai Siya Ram. And even non Hindus had no problem in using this to greet each other. Now Ram's name has become synonymous for violence. Or rather it has become a tool to bully Muslims and establish supremacy over them. Hindus must now think (and ask) if BJP-RSS and its coterie, should say Jai Shri Ram whenever they like but not force others to say that.

The Jai Shri Ram Owaisi incident in Lok Sabha was very shameful. We did not criticize that event. After completing his oath, Owaisi said Jai Bhim, Jai Meem, Takbir etc. to say that he was a Muslim and he could also use such slogans.

We should have criticized then that Jai Shri Ram or Takbir should not be chanted in Parliament. With these lynchings, a large section of people are being criminalized. Tabrez lynching video, shows even women and children beating him. Hindus are being made criminals so that one party remains in power. Should not Hindus see that they are being criminalized? Can't they see that their children are being turned into criminals?

Time has come to prohibit Jai Shri Ram. time has come to stop the use of Jai Shri Ram in violent incidents."

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 can check my reply if I ever claimed about the video but the article. In the "article"

of "The wire" provided by me, there is mention of RIGHT WINGED EXTREMISTS. You clearly skipped the article or didn't want to mention it and went straight to the video.You deviated from my point and went on proof your point. Also what about the word?? If Extremists is not suitable then add something else. You asked me to provide rs, I provided. Then you said with this word, we won't be able to cover all the instances. I don't know what's your actual objective.Anonymous2611 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Apoorvanand clearly means that the BJP and its allies are the right-wing extremists. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * SerChevalerie I agree with you. What my main actually point is to ADD A WORD IN THAT LINE to differentiate between those who use it in Violence and others. So I asked to use Extremists but Kautilya3 seems to disagree even if I provided rs and according to him one of the sources doesn't actually mentioned Extremists which I disagree. For a instance, even if I agree with him, what about other sources that I provided. Still let's say Extremists is not suitable to use, then "Add something else to differentiate between those who use it in Violence and those who don't. What's your stance about it?Anonymous2611 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We're back where we started then, by WP:V, we call BJP as extremists and that isn't WP:NPOV and starts a much bigger debate. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Apoorvanand did not call any one "right wing extremists". That was the terminology used by some unsigned writer of The Wire who tried to write a quick summary of the video's substance. The BJP and their allies are referred to as "Hindu nationalist" on Wikipedia. We are not going to change that now on the strength of this anonymous write-up.
 * More importantly, Apoorvanand's commentary also makes clear that the people that committed violence in the Tabrez Ansari lynching were ordinary Hindus, including women and children. Indeed, our own page on it calls it mob lynching. No "extremists" there.
 * The purported "Hindus expressing faith in Rama" are nowhere in evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I misread that. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hinduphiobia
islamic radicalisation proposed theory that jai shree ram is a communal violence voice. it's completely hinduphobic theories and writting with agenda and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaafir007 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

‘Lord’ Ram?
WP:NCIN recognises that Hindu deities are often given the honorific prefix ‘Lord’ in English texts/speech, but it discourages editors from including these in articles due to concerns for neutrality. Seeing this, Lord will have to be omitted in the article as Ram’s title/honorific in the translations given, even if the source translated his name with it. —I&#39;llbeyourbeach (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is about a slogan, not a deity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's about a slogan pertaining to a deity. —I&#39;llbeyourbeach (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Where the article mentions Rama, generally the WP:COMMONNAME should be used, but "translating as "Glory to Lord Rama"" is fine, assuming it's correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The concern here is that translating the honorific over is at odds with neutrality and MOS:HONOR; no meaning is lost if the translation is "Glory to Ram". —I&#39;llbeyourbeach (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And if you change a quote you go against MOS:QUOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did mean this as an edit request. If the editors still have any reservations I'm here to clarify things, or listen to a reason why this isn't going to be useful. Pinging who were the ones who replied to me. —I&#39;llbeyourbeach (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already answered your question. If it is not clear to you, you might read Use-mention distinction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jai Shri Rama
Found this draft created by. At a cursory glance it is largely unsourced, but some of it could possibly be merged here. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello the editors,

I have been bought to notice by few of my friends that this page " Jai Shri Ram " Is vandalized. This article is completely Hinduphobic and highly racist against Hindu community.

We obviously cannot write that Muslims use "Allahu Akbar" Before terrorist attacks. That will be highly insulting to a faith. Requesting you to kindly remove the objectionable content from the article. The Slogan is very sensitive to people of Hindu faith, but vandalising the page and by supporting of such Hinduphobic act may create some serious issues.

Regards, Shaant78 (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:CENSOR. Thanks, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Please change description
I see no reason to take political party name or on any Organisation name as reference to describe "Jai Shri Ram". Clearly shows how this article is misguided. Please study or discuss this topic and publish right content. Ashwinikanth (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: MOS:LEAD is a good enough reason, considering the organisations are discussed in-depth within the reliable sources provided and the article body itself. Thanks, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk  15:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph on reported attacks on Muslims
This article includes a paragraph on Muslims having been attacked and forced to chant Jai Shri Ram. It is repeatedly being removed, generally without explanation but sometimes with comments such as "hate crime", "fake news" or "hinduphobia", and restored. Should it be Retained or Removed?


 * Retain. The claim is reported in reliable sources and the text is neutrally phrased (it says there were reports of such attacks; it states that these reports have been disputed). Wikipedia is not censored. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Retain - Almost every news media has reported those incidents. Not only Indian,but major foreign to India too. Can't see any reason to remove it. Edward Zigma (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove - Almost every news media has reported does not mean its true about attacks!! India is securlar largest democratic county not a middle eastern country by a dictator. Most of media houses have agendas funded by lobbies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamadharma (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain - I agree with both of the above points of view. Sachi Mohanty 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs)


 * Retain - But the proper usage of the term should be explained first, before moving on to controversial usages of the term. It is unfair just to report controversies associated with a term, without explaining it's history and normal usage. Varun2048 (Varun2048 14:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain. But I am going to add a section about historical usage of this term too. It is very unfair to just have a section on the misuse or controversies arising out of this term and not have one on its intended meaning. Doing so will also reduce edit wars. Jamailfaroukh (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove- jai shri ram is a religious slogan and donot be attach to any lynch incident the people who are misusing slogan are not following hindu dharm Sujit1610 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Sujit1610 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Remove : Jai shree Ram is an emotion to those who follows Hinduism and it should never be clubbed with any words such as war cary or lynching acts. If there have been cases reported where people have been forced to chant Jai shree Ram even then the significance or the definition of the term should not be altered. It should rather be shown in reference bar with proper evidence of a genuine repoting agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portashu5 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain – per Dorsetonian. Wikipedia is not censored, and just because people don't like reading something is no reason to remove content -- especially if well-sourced (which it is). —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 15:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain - Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 3 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 an venomous political agenda of anti-Hindu forces. Pareshpandit (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC) — Pareshpandit (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Remove - Jai Shri Ram is a popular North Indian greeting. The article does not dwell into any of the historical evolution of the greeting or its origins dating back to Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas. Rather, it only focuses on some recent claims as if this is only related to lynchings; these claims are equally disputed by academics and many sections of media. The current article focuses on a specific viewpoint on this greeting. Ascribing origins of the greeting to a television series of 1980s is ridiculous. The use of greeting is traced back to literature going back to at least Ramcharitmanas (16th century). It also appears in many Hindi movies of 1960s. The writers of the lead seem very ignorant of the history of this greeting.Vizziee (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove - Prabhu Shri Ram gives a message of peace.Those people raised the slogan while the attack, misuse slogan. Paragraph mislead people about Prabu Shri Ram. Wrong message spread. Some Source are not Reliable Maheshknow (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC) — Maheshknow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Remove - not suitable for use in the lede. To say that it is used as "a war cry, for perpetration of communal atrocities against people of other faiths" is an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary sources to back this assertion up (see WP:REDFLAG). This also appears to be the opinion of one academic, and therefore cannot be portrayed as a matter of fact without actually having multiple, reliable sources backing it up. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  09:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have missed the 21 additional reliable sources in, which can be re-added to the article with refn. —  Newslinger  talk   09:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you reproduce the relevant portions of the 21 sources for others to review? I cannot access most as they are behind paywalls. The ones I could review were on JSTOR, some of which mention that perpetrators of violence against Muslims chanted "Jai Shri Ram", but not that it is a "war cry", or that it is a "war cry" used prior to the commission of violence against minorities/individuals of other faiths. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  09:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain per, which list 21 reliable sources that support this claim. —  Newslinger  talk   09:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain – per Dorsetonian and Kautilya3. I have since edited the paragraph(s?) in question as per WP:DUE. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain Yes, Muslims have, as matter of fact been attacked and forced to chant "Jai Shri Ram". Abbasquadir (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I request these claims to be removed. They might be true. but Jai shri Ram is related more to religion than to communal violence. Also the sources cited are heavily biased against Hinduism. When a topic is mentioned in the encyclopedia, we mention what it is about, what is its history, etc. Not how it is being misused or being used in the wrong way. Moreover the article appears to be biased against Hinduism, like several other articles. Also The sources mentioned may be reliable for the wiki admins, but they should try and understand that now-a-days sources report only the negative facts about an incident or a topic. They fail to report any other stiff related to the topic. These sources often get up cited here on Wikipedia, creating a negative image i the mind of the reader. An encyclopedia article's purpose is to provide info, not incite Hatred or disregard for any community, group or faith. Even if a majority of sources say against it. Parlebourbon3 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, almost all of the sources in are high-quality academic sources. An allegation of bias, unsupported by reliable sources, does not reduce the weight all of these academic sources. I'd like to thank  for expanding the article to give the Origins section its due weight. —  Newslinger   talk   11:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If one uses God's name for anything unethical, it is not the God's fault..Ur misguiding the belief of people by including a fight scene which goes on in almost any country into jai shree ram wiki.. The makers should remove it as soon as possible Fragilez190 (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Fragilez190 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Remove..that para has nothing to do with that incident and shree ram..


 * Retain - Just search Allah Hu Akabr(Takbir) article in wikipedia. You'll find all kind of terrorist attacks and lynchings are mentioned. So compared to that this is nothing. But I agree to add some more positive usage of 'Jai Shri Ram' which is used many devotional songs too.(source is Google. Search Jai shri ram lyrics) I'm new so I hope some one professional can add this.Anonymous2611 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC) — Anonymous2611 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC).


 * Retain - Wikipedia is not suppoosed to be WP:CENSORed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasquadir (talk • contribs)

Remove. - Need to maintain dignity of lord shri ram, It is not at all a war cry. Its a slogan to glorify lord ram. Switchmymind (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC) — Switchmymind (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article is openly being racist to Hindus
Assigning th phrase to a war cry alobe is deeply hinduphopic and factually balant hate message GhostIn$hell (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored and just because you don't like it does not make it a hate message. Regards, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it is absurdly racist, the fact that it's protected shows how controversial it is. As a member I'm officially voicing my view, This is balant cherry picking to suit a psudo political religious narative.


 * I'm building a formal article on this will continue soon GhostIn$hell (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , can you back these claims with reliable sources? As you can see in the article, every single line is currently sourced to a well reputed publication. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said I'm building a article, and if those politically aligned biased source is acceptable then so should a dozen links I have fetched in the last hour alone , forward by EOD GhostIn$hell (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

build an article if you will as a kind of tit-for-tat response to this article proportionately discussing a negative view represented in reliable sources; however, again, please understand that won't achieve a single thing — unless your goal is to waste your time. You are disputing content and labeling it as hateful -- yet the content is sourced, reliably might I add. The best course of action would be to drop your own feelings about the issue (without trying to be blunt, Wikipedia isn't concerned with feelings) and as has suggested: provide reliable sources here in this discussion, and perhaps we will be able to go on from there. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 07:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about "Hindus" on this page. Only the Hindu nationalists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

In the page 'Jai Shri Ram' There is offensive content that 'The expression was used by the Indian Hindu nationalist organisations Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their allies, which embraced the slogan in the late 20th century as a tool of increasing the visibility of Hinduism in public spaces and went on to use it as a war cry. The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths.[28]' This is the slogan to chant lord Rama and it is not a' war cry' remove this content and related articles Ramkumarkolamala2015 (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't remove content just because someone finds it offensive. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to know why is this page being locked for edits with such an iron hand and that too so long? Is it due contributors' lack of confidence in their own work? Also, despite folks here providing ample sources for correction of this article, it's simply being refused for some flimsy reasons. What is going on here? WriteOnlyTruth (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi to answer your first question: the article is protected due to the disruptive editing of a recent wave of new editors who were removing content they didn’t like. Replying to your second question: no, of course not. In response to your last claim, by “flimsy” reasons, are you referring to Wikipedia guidelines and policies? If so, “flimsy” might be the wrong word. “Ironclad” is probably more appropriate. Thanks, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk  00:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020
The slogan has never been used against other faiths but to justify hinduism and their traditions which are into existence before all other religions came into existence. 49.36.35.188 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 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. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed for opening sentence of Rama symbolism
The line "The worship of Rama increased significantly in the 12th century, following the invasions of Muslim Turks" sounded more like an assumption and we might need a reliable source cited as proof of this claim. Added, the Citation Needed template and requesting inputs from other editors on this. RamRaghubn (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation 27 which is already used to verify succeeding sentences (but of course, can be brought forward or duplicated to verify the sentence in question), states and I quote:
 * "Sanskrit scholar Sheldon Pollock connects the rise of the epic in the 12th century to the profound changes that accompanied the Muslim Turkic invasions of India starting with the raids of Mahmud of Ghazni in 1001 AD. The invasions eventually resulted in the establishment of the first sultanate in 1206 at Delhi. While “the evidence prior to the twelfth century that Rama may have been the object of worship is scanty”, writes Pollock, this changed by the mid-12th century with a sudden rush of temples built for Ram"
 * Unless you object, I'll remove the tag and duplicate the citation for that particular sentence. Regards, —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having had no objections, that change has been made. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2020
Hi admin, Jai Shri Ram is not a war cry .it has represented has a wrong and it will affect the belief of Hindu people. please remove that line 103.81.192.50 (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See also the FAQ at the top of this page. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 22:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The image
The image of Ram feels a bit not Okay....Is it Okay if someone changes the image to a painting of Ram.... AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What is a good WP:LEADIMAGE can be quite subjective. What replacement do you suggest? It may be simpler (copyright infringement etc) if it's one you find at Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The image is of a statue in Ayodhya. I am afraid that is how the Jai Shri Ram activists visualise him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Having an Ayodhya Rama in this article makes an amount of sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS Clearly states that the introduction should be nuetral
Dear admins, As I mentioned earlier. According to MOS:LEAD the lead should be neutral. If you just go through the format of lead you could see that it clearly mentioned how the lead should be descriptive and neutral. Takbir being used by the infamous terrorist group as a war cry is not mentioned in its Lead. Please note that I am not writing it because I want it but because this is a particular format should be followed by your editors too. You people are human too and can have biases (No offense). I have seen one admin here is an atheist, I hope he does not have something personal against Hindus just because of BJP. One thing I want to state clearly is that I have no problem with criticizing the use in an appropriate column such as Takbir but the description should be neutral without the last lines. Thank you. Parassharma1 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEAD states that the lead (like all content) must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and this requires all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. To censor part of the lead as you advocate would not be neutral. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This page clearly violated manual of style just in the introduction. The 2nd paragraph should be edited to provide neutral introduction, and "incidents of communal violence" should be a separate section. The references for it are not good enough in my opinion, but that can be a separate discussion. Preacher066 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 21 reliable sources cited in, including more than a dozen high-quality academic sources, are more than sufficient for the cited claims in the lead section. —  Newslinger  talk   03:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The Lead is absolutely not neutral and is barely even in context. As far as I can tell from an outside perspective, this phrase is a religious/ devotional one, and has been co-opted to some extent by certain political parties. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to mention politics within the lead unless the subject is inherently political in nature, intent, or motive; which it's not. It needs to be cleaned up to include context of the phrase in a neutral style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.147.190 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead is pretty ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing the article as Hinduism
Jai Shri Ram is a greeting used by many Hindus, so it can be categorized as an article on Hinduism. Shubhams123 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide WP:RS. It is not enough to say it is "used by many Hindus". It must be an integral part of Hinduism, for it to be listed in a navigation template. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As evidenced by this news article Prem Sagar’s biography of his father, Ramanand Sagar, begins with the words “Jai Shri Ram”, reflecting not only the TV mogul’s preferred salutation, but also the slogan he made part of a vast swathe of Indian households through Doordarshan’s Ramayan. The TV show that popularized the phrase is one of the most watched in India. --Shubhams123 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's actually, via Category:Sangh Parivar, a sub-sub-sub... category to Hinduism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is also popular outside of the sangh parivar, as the articles cited don't mention the usage is only limited to Sangh Parivar. -- Shubhams123 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, you were talking about a sidebar, I didn't get that. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, if you're going to have the sidebar in the article you should put the article in the sidebar. "Practices", perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As an admin on this page, I hope you agree that a consensus has been reached at this point in time, with support from Gråbergs Gråa Sång as well. -- Shubhams123 (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, consensus has not been reached. The citation only shows that a TV director created the slogan and it was popular for a while. That doesn't make it part of Hinduism.
 * I am also not sure of 's point. If it is part of Sangh Parivar, then a Sangh Parivar template should go here. Why Hinduism?
 * For the Hinduism template to go here authentic scholarly sources on Hinduism should acknowledge that this is part of Hinduism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought they wanted to add Category:Hinduism to the article, that was what I was commenting on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, he wants to promote it as "a part of a series on Hinduism". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide any reason why an article that can be added to Category:Hinduism should not be included in "a part of a series on Hinduism". -- Shubhams123 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a backwards question. The WP:ONUS for arguing for inclusion rests on those who propose content. I have already stated the criteria for inclusion: For the Hinduism template to go here authentic scholarly sources on Hinduism should acknowledge that this is part of Hinduism. That follows from WP:Verifiability and WP:DUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I have already provided my reasoning with appropriate sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång misunderstood, but agrees on adding it to Category:Hinduism. It is you that are of the opinion that being a part of Category:Hinduism does not qualify it to be "a part of series on Hinduism", so the WP:ONUS falls on you to justify this stand. Please only justify this stand, we can discuss about types of sources you wish to see later. -- Shubhams123 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I said it's in Category:Hinduism, via the present categories. Compare Rama, not directly in Category:Hinduism either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support adding Hinduism "category" but not in favour of adding it on the main Hinduism template. . 245CMR . •👥📜
 * I hope we can add it to Category:Hinduism then. I am in support of adding it to the category as well. -- Shubhams123 (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. Even for that yo need the same kind of sources as I asked for above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the guidance at Categorization advice against it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving the paragraph about usage by Hindu Nationalist to a separate section
The phrase might have been used by some radical elements against other religious groups, but so have been other religious phrases.

In the cited article, to maintain the piousness of the phrase in the minds of millions of followers, who are nowhere like the radical extremists that use it to further their own purposes, the negativity around the phrase has been moved to a separate sub-section "Usage by extremists".

Religion and its expressions should not be defined by its worst adherents. I suggest moving the particular paragraph to the section Usage and sub-section Controversial. This removes the assumption that one gets from reading the article on the first go, that the phrase always has negative connotations. I hope my request is considered in good faith. Have gone through the FAQs as well, didn't find an answer satisfactory, so have chosen to raise the issue here. Shubhams123 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the second lead paragraph. It fits per WP:LEAD. IMO, the first lead paragraph clearly contradicts that the phrase always has negative connotations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was referring to the second lead paragraph. The WP:LEAD article leaves it to the readers interpretation as it cites WP:NPOV as "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section". Keeping in mind the faith of millions of Hindus, who do not wish to be associated with the radical fringes, it should be a wise decision on your part to move it to the appropriate section, rather than the lead one. Shubhams123 (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A lead section of a Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the article body, and the lead section of this article does so. If you have high-quality academic sources on Takbir that resemble the ones cited in this article, feel free to share them at Talk:Takbir. —  Newslinger  talk   08:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Quality academic sources have been cited in that article as well. My point is that is how this article should be as well, and I wouldn't want to change the cited article a bit. Shubhams123 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, the section is a very small portion of the Takbir article, and cites 3 news articles. In contrast, the  section is a larger portion of the Jai Shri Ram article, and its summary in the lead section justifies its due weight with citations of 12 high-quality academic sources and 2 news articles.Academic sources about the negative use of the Takbir probably exist, and those can be added to that article, which may then justify adding a mention of the negative use to the lead section of the Takbir article. For the Jai Shri Ram article, I don't see a policy-based reason to remove the expression's negative use from the lead section (as it constitutes due weight and Wikipedia is not censored). However, if you can find reliably sourced information about other aspects of Jai Shri Ram, please share it so that it can be incorporated into the article. —  Newslinger   talk   11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are entirely mistaken about what Jai Shri Ram means. I suggest that you read the sources that were provided instead of trying to tinker Wikipedia to your own convictions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the sources and found them to hold little value for the article it represents. I am not disagreeing that the phrase has been used by religious extremists. However, usage in good faith outnumber usage in bad faith, and so, my suggestion is that the certain paragraph be removed from the Lead, and be put into a separate section of Usage or sub-section of Usage by extremists. Reporting in the media often focuses on the negatives, and the purpose of Wikipedia as a neutral viewpoint should be not to be burdened by the overwhelming negativity in the media. I'd also like to refer to the discussion that User:Newslinger had over for Takbir, as I consider it a good example on how article on faith should be written. The consensus there was reached, and I'd like to highlight a important comment opposing made -
 * "Definitely not. Describing the takbir as an 'Islamic war cry', where its use is limited to extremist groups who profess to follow a very narrow interpretation of the religion, is inappropriate. This paragraph also seems to violate WP:NPOV in its prose." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhams123 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As MOS:LEAD states, the lead section should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". The article's description of the negative use of Jai Shri Ram is covered by 12 high-quality academic sources and 2 news articles, which makes it due in the lead section. Whether a particular editor finds it offensive is irrelevant. The content in other articles is also not relevant to this article without a policy-based justification for the proposed changes to this article; if you would like to supplement the Takbir article with missing information, feel free to share reliable sources on Talk:Takbir. —  Newslinger  talk   04:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Please obtain consensus on this talk page before reinstating a disputed edit. You may find the bold, revert, discuss cycle to be a useful recommendation. —  Newslinger  talk   04:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you look at usage - It says - Voilent incidents, Political and 'Other uses' effectively projecting that largely this term is negatively used. while it's quite opposite. IDK What is happening to sane minds who 'protected' this article from being edited ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.125.116.193 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What text do you suggest to be added, based on what WP:RS? "The proclamation has been used as an informal greeting" (lead) doesn't seem to be expanded on in the article (that "Siya Ram" has been used like that is mentioned). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Fellow IP, there is a saying called "safety in swift ruin". Let the negative portrayal stay, because the sooner this site's leftist bias is seen by everyone, the better. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those who want to see that, sees that. See A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not much more than I could say when I came upon the article and saw a simple devotional prayer of ours described as being used communally just because a few extremists used it in that sense. As for sources, they can be dug up for pretty much anything. And of course, the Takbir cannot be described that way, because then "extremists only" and "don't offend sensibilities" suddenly becomes valid. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", keeping in mind that "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered" (WP:NPOV). This article's coverage of the use of Jai Shri Ram in violent incidents mirrors the large amount of coverage of this usage in high-quality academic sources. —  Newslinger  talk   21:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021
in this article there are few sentences that hurts a community sentiments. Remove it - "The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths." 2409:4064:4EA0:17AE:6E6F:3493:C55C:91F5 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see this link: WP:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021
Please Remove The Last Line and The Line Before the Last Line that tells that This Slogan is Used to Tease Other Religion;as there is not written in other Religion's Slogan's too.If You Didn't Remove this Line Which Signifies This Slogan creating Violence,which in reality is not,then I have to Sue the Editor to the Court of U.S. 2409:4041:2E83:37D5:0:0:44C9:611 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022
I hereby humbly request Wikipedia to remove the line no. 23 which is openly defaming the beliefs, values and emotions of hindu people in general relating it with violence , it is same as writing that allah hu akbar is a terrorist slogan used by terrorists before committing ting suicide bombings especially in India. please remove the given line or i will have to write a proper request to ministry of information Technology on following inappropriate representation of a daily spiritual salutation. Aryaman Bharat (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2022 (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. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 03:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" section above. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 04:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Negative usage in introduction
How come this article has "The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths." in the introduction itself whereas Takbir does not have it till a much later section? That too with a ready justification of three references. In fact the third one can be translated to any negative word usage.

May be I will be subjected to Advocacy but I am just advocating for parity between articles on similar topics and may be moving the negative usage to a more latter section instead of introduction in this article.-113.193.34.124 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Takbir and WP:OTHERCONTENT. And WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Your WP:OTHERCONTENT is kind of lame, entire countries run on precedents/convention etc. I went through rest of the article after your response and I must say WP:LEAD of this article and in fact the name of the article itself is misleading. It should have been something like "Political usage of Jai Shree Ram" because except initial three lines and a small section about usage of the slogan in other forms, rest of the article focuses on right wing usage which is fairly recent. Nevertheless have it your way, its not that the lead is wrong, its the title of the article that needs improvement.--1.23.93.104 (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (I'm assuming you are the same person I replied to earlier) It's a difficult topic, no question. This article may have something you find interesting. If you know any good WP:RS about the topic that are missing from the WP-article, consider mentioning them on this talkpage, so interested editors can take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022
"Change The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths.[23] To "The slogan had since been employed for Showing true faith in Hinduism. 2409:4042:51F:5C21:B6F9:1150:C13F:851D (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Content
Content should be relevant and linked example : What A thinks has no place on Wikipedia. Jay Shri Ram is just to greet other people. How RSS etc uses it should not be added to Wikipedia Het666 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written to summarise reliable sources. Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See frequently asked questions (FAQ) Q1 and Q3 above. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023
"The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths. This is entirely false targetting one community and needs to be removed Ashborn24 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This looks to be well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Can i add this line in starting of coinage section.
Can i just add this line at the startingof coinage section "Although the exact date of coinage of the slogan "Jai Shri Ram" is unknown."

This is absolutely true as no one knows the exact date of coinage of the slogan.

AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Because currently it starts with "In movie Sampoorna Ramayan....", which could be mistaken as the first usage of this slogan whereas we exactly don't know where it is used for first time. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I use a link of a movie which is uploaded by original producer on YouTube as a reference?
@MelbourneStar removed some of my work from Wikipedia page Jai Shri Ram, by giving a reason that I cannot use YouTube video link as a reference.

original producer? -yes

Is it used for information? -yes

Is it to be used as a reference? -yes

Is it original producer a reliable source? -well absolutely,as they themselves made that movie.

Will it improve the article? -Ofcourse

Information I added: In 1957 movie named Ram Hanuman Yuddhaa "Jai Shri Ram" is clearly audible.

Reference i gave: []

The video in the YouTube link is the movie Ram Hanuman Yuddhaa (1954) uploaded by it's original producer (i.e Ultra Films).

What else would be the better citation than giving the link to original movie with timestamp where the given word "Jai Shri Ram" is spoken.

Moreover, the movie is older than 60 year, hence now in public domain would it be okay if just trim that part from movie and upload on Wikimedia and then cite here? AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Compare the cite for the mention of Ramayan :. Somebody besides a WP-editor noticed Jai Shri Ram was mentioned and bothered to write something about it. Get that, and we can talk. Without, you're at WP:OR/WP:ISAWIT. It's only interesting for this WP-article if a WP:RS makes the connection between the work and the article topic. If not, write about it on your blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What else connection you want, Jai Shri Ram is topic of Article and I am mentioning a movie where it was used. You guys want to imply that VHP made this slogan but you don't want to digest a fact that a movie made in 1957 already featured this
 * Why are you guys so biased? AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This may give a some hint of why:. And of course, we are not you, and people who are not you are biased. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then just tell me what I need to do, to get those lines added in article. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If nobody ever noticed this slogan in 1957 movie and didn't wrote a article on it, doesn't changes the fact that it was used in a movie much before your Ramayan serial, the article you cited is wrong and not well researched. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Being wrong is also a common fault in people who are not you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't you give a proper reply, what I need to do to get that information added in the article as it is important for reader to know that a movie released in 1957 already use this slogan before the Ramayan serial. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, the cite says "was already in popular use in late 1980s courtesy the TV serial Ramayan", it doesn't say it was never used before. Neither does this WP-article. If there are WP:RS that write about pre-Ramayan use, we can use them. A WP-article, on any subject, is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS about that subject. Sometimes we come fairly close. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't it be good to add detail of a movie where it was first used. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The title of the topic is Coinage, so you should give information about what are the possiblity when it was coined rather than adding details of who popularised it. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I add Bodha's composition which is published in a book named Bhartiya Premakhyan Kavya (1955)?
These are the line i want to add

कही न बात बालम की मानी । चली रूस अतिहि खिसियानी ॥ तब माधव वीणा लीना । चल्यो रिसाय हिये रस भीना ॥ 'जय श्री राम' विप्र उच्चारी । कृपा करत रहिये सुन प्यारी ॥ सुनके बाल मंद मुसक्यानी । डगर चल्यो माधो द्विज ज्ञानी ॥ https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Bh%C4%81rat%C4%ABya_prem%C4%81khy%C4%81na_k%C4%81vya/FZtHAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%22&kptab=overview

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.425766/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater

Bodha lived between 1767-1806. https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE

AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't read that and have no idea what it is, perhaps other editors will be interested in commenting. It could perhaps help if you translated the relevant sentences. According to archive.org, it's "Bhartiya Premakhyan Kavya (1955) by Harikant Srivastav". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This line is written in devnagri script.
 * The word 'जय श्री राम' in above composition is devnagri for 'Jai Shri Ram'. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't translate whole composition as it is written in 'Awadhi', but I can understand devnagri script and 'Jai Shri Ram' is clearly mentioned. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

jaya sri ram vipra ucchari kripa karat rahiye sun pyari

My rough-and-ready translation:
 * "Jai Shri Rama" the noble ones chant
 * Blessings you get, keep listening dear

Beautiful lines. I don't know where that gets us though. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Me neither. But beautiful. AbhishekSaini1910 has a point above that "Coinage" doesn't really fit the content under the heading, since we don't seem know about any WP:RS that speculate on that. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
 * We could change "Coinage" to something like "Modern use" and remove the "Usage" heading, it might fit the text better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be much better. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Full passage is given on page no 133 of a book "Birahvarish Madhvanalkamkandla" published in 1894.
 * https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.378978/page/n159/mode/2up
 * Can you translate some more of it. It is oldest published book where I could find 'Jai Shri Ram' is written.
 * I want to add this in coinage section of the article as one of the oldest book where 'Jai Shri Ram' is written. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we add these line as oldest possible record of slogan untill someone find even more older record. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * More info about the book here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B6_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE.djvu&page=2 AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you propose the exact text that you would like to see added, along with WP:Full citations? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A famous hindi poet named Bodha who lived between 1767-1806 wrote in one of his composition:
 * कहीन बाल बालम की मानी । चली रूस अतिही खिसियानी ॥
 * तब द्विज माधो बीणा लीना । चल्यो रिसाय हिये रसभीना ॥
 * जय श्रीराम विप्र उच्चारी | कृपाकरत रहिये सुन प्यारी ॥
 * सुनके बाल मंद मुसुक्यानी । डगरचल्यो माधो द्विज ज्ञानी ॥
 * झपटबाल बहियां गहि लीन्ही । बूझीकितको यात्रा कीन्ही ॥
 * अब यह गुसामाफ करदीजै । चलिये बहुरि अमायस कीजै ॥
 * Citation 1:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FZtHAAAAMAAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&q=%22%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AF+%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80+%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%22&hl=en&redir_esc=y
 * Citation 2:https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.425766/page/n250/mode/1up?view=theater
 * Citation 3:https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.378978/page/n159/mode/2up
 * Citation 4: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B6_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE.djvu&page=161
 * The word 'जय श्री राम'in line 3 is devnagari for 'Jai Shri Ram'. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that is only good for a talk page post, not mainspace content. And they are not WP:Full citations either. For it to be encyclopaedic, we need the context. Who is Bodha, what is this poem, why did he mention Jai Shri Ram in the middle of it? Unless you have read and understood the Premakhyan book (at least this part of it), you can't do it. If you need suggest help, I suggest you initiate a discussion at the Hindi Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Why aren't they [WP:Full citations], please explain little further.
 * Who is Bodha? There is a Wikipedia page about him on Hindi Wikipedia.
 * Why did he mention Jai Shri Ram? We will get to know, once I get it translated. But that would not change the fact that Jai Shri Ram was in use between 1767-1806. He used this slogan at that time is more important than why he used it.
 * Can I add this in mainspace content, after i get it translated? AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you have had several edits reverted by several editors, it is recommended that you obtain WP:CONSENSUS for the exact text here before you insert it into the main space. Otherwise, it may be construed as further WP:edit warring.
 * And since we don't have a WP:SECONDARY source explaining this mention occurring in a poem, we can't say anything at this stage until the context is better understood. (Note that the book you brought is on Premakhyan — romantic literatue.)
 * Be sure to read the WP:Full citation page in full. Read in particular WP:CITEHOW. You are not going to be taken serirously if you don't display even minimum comprehension skills. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Shri in "Jai Shri Ram" refers to Sita.
Jai Shri Ram translates to "Glory to Sita & Rama" or "Victory to Sita & Rama". Many believes that it translates to “Glory to Lord Rama” but in reality it is not true. According to Hinduism Shri is another name of Goddess Lakshmi therefore Sita being an incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi is also referred to as Shri. Being the wife of Lord Ram the name of Sita i.e. Shree is used along with Lord Ram. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your WP:RS for "Jai Shri Ram translates to "Glory to Sita & Rama" or "Victory to Sita & Rama"? For example, this book disagrees with you. Yes, the author could be wrong, but you saying he is wrong is not enough. Do you have WP:RS that disagrees?  Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is this Mukullika Banerjee who owns the ultimate authority to translate a slogan. She must have misunderstood it due to her biased opinions. I am giving to the proper explanation with citations:
 * It translates to "Glory to Sita & Rama" or "Victory to Sita & Rama". Many believes that it translates to “Glory to Lord Rama” but in reality it is not true. According to Hinduism Shri is another name of Goddess Lakshmi https://qz.com/india/545655/the-ancient-story-of-goddess-lakshmi-bestower-of-power-wealth-and-sovereignty therefore Sita being an incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi https://www.bl.uk/learning/cult/inside/ramayanastories/overvue/ramaoverview.html#:~:text=Sita%20is%20an%20incarnation%20of,incarnates%20she%20incarnates%20with%20him. is also referred to as Shri.
 * Being the wife of Lord Ram the name of Sita i.e. Shree is used along with Lord Ram, similar to the use of Vishnu's name Hari for his Incarnations Ram & Krishna. 117.208.110.211 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So you have no source for "Jai Shri Ram translates to "Glory to Sita & Rama" or "Victory to Sita & Rama"". Well, in WP-land, that's it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What if i publish a book with exact same information and them cites it here. 117.208.110.211 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia page Shri it is written it refers to Lakshmi. And i had already given source of sita is an incarnation of lakshmi. What other sources do we need to translate. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We need WP:RS that says "Jai Shri Ram translates to "Glory to Sita & Rama" or "Victory to Sita & Rama"". Not WP:OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the@ citation, for my claim! AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Jai Shri Ram means victory to Sita Ram"
 * https://connecthindu.com/jai-shri-ram/#:~:text=Jai%20Shri%20Ram%20means%20victory%20to%20Sita%20Ram AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOG:. Just because something is online, it doesn't mean it's a WP:RS. But you know that by now, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What about this one? https://99kanoon.com/rss-%e0%a4%95%e0%a5%8b-%e0%a4%98%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%b0%e0%a4%a8%e0%a5%87-%e0%a4%ae%e0%a5%87%e0%a4%82-%e0%a4%89%e0%a4%a1%e0%a4%bc%e0%a4%b5%e0%a4%be-%e0%a4%b2%e0%a4%bf%e0%a4%af%e0%a4%be-%e0%a4%ae%e0%a4%9c/ Use google translate if you don't know hindi. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As you already know, it's a blog: . IMO, you are getting WP:DISRUPTIVE. On a topic like this, look for scholarly sources, university press and scholarly journals. Established news-media can also be WP:RS, but details and context matter. See also WP:DUE. Even if one of your above links would have been WP:RS, that doesn't mean that all the WP:RS which contradicts it would be thrown out. But you know that too, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats how world works, demand for Woman Rights were considered disruptive by many for years. "If something is correct one should fight for it forever" AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Many still consider it so, but perhaps not as many as those who don't. We can hope. Your WP:TRUTH is your WP:TRUTH. But now we're off the topic of this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, I wish we had something more academic for the "Religious" section than "Photojournalist Prashant Panjiar wrote..." Still, not an awful source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that is a fact that no one says jai shri ram, it is his propagandist opinion nothing else. I have been to Ayodya many times and Jai Shri Ram echoes there 117.208.110.211 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This paragraph falls under WP:FAPO as it is his opinion that you are mentioning as fact on Wikipedia. He himself clearly mentioned on his website that it is his opinion. 117.208.110.211 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This are is a personal opinion of his 117.208.110.211 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the section does it say that no one says jai shri ram. WP says it's a fact that Prashant Panjiar wrote about it. And he did. One possibilty is that things have changed since he wrote it, and that as of 2023 nobody says anything else but jai shri ram at Ayodhya. If we have WP:RS that says that, we can use them. WP:ISAWIT doesn't help, WP:RS does. And try to stay logged in, it makes communication easier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "while the older male pilgrims prefer not to use Rama's name at all". Then what is this. I have met many older male pilgrims repeating Ram Ram all the time.
 * And what do you mean by that "WP says its a fact that Prashant wrote it", is this a article about Jai shree ram or Prashant's travel blog, what he saw there is his opinion nothing to do with this article and who are you to share his traveling experience in the name of knowledge.
 * If tomorrow i publish a blog saying i saw thousands of older male chanting rama name, would it be okay to write that Abhishek Saini wrote......? 117.208.110.211 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the proof that you are not "Prashant Panjir" citing your own content to spread Propaganda. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I could be (I'm not), and you could be Narendra Modi, but it's up to you to convince other Wikipedians that I'm doing some sort of WP:SELFCITEing here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understood your point. And what do you mean by that "WP says its a fact that Prashant wrote it", is this a article about Jai shree ram or Prashant's travel blog, what he saw there is his opinion nothing to do with this article and who are you sharing his traveling experience in the name of knowledge. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * you haven't answer my above question properly AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

These lines by Jan Breman contains fake information & should be removed.
These lines by Jan Breman contains fake information and should be removed as wikipedia is not a garbage ground to throw someone fake statements.

"An interesting aside here is that the greeting 'Jai Siya Ram' has been transformed into the battle cry 'Jai Shri Ram' ('Long live Lord Ram'). The Hindu supreme god has assumed the form of a macho general. In the original meaning, 'Siya Ram' had been a popular greeting of welcome in the countryside since time immemorial... The Hindu fanatics have now also banished her from the popular greeting by changing Siya to 'Shri' (Lord), thereby suppressing the feminine element in favour of masculine virility and assertiveness."

Let me break it line by line:

1. "An interesting aside here is that the greeting 'Jai Siya Ram' has been transformed into the battle cry 'Jai Shri Ram' ('Long live Lord Ram')". It is absolutely fake, no one changed the greeting both are used as greeting since time immemorial, as I have already added in the meaning section of the main article that According to a Marathi & English dictionary by military officer J.T. Molesworth published in 1857 (110 year before VHP and RSS), both जयश्रीराम (jayaśrīrāma) & जयसीताराम (jayasītārāma) are "forms of salutation to and by बैरागी (bairāgī)". Meaning of बैरागी (bairāgī) was given as "An individual of a class of mendicants who renounce the world and practise austerities. They are devotees of विष्णु (viṣṇu)".

2."'Jai Siya Ram' has been transformed into the battle cry 'Jai Shri Ram' ('Long live Lord Ram')" It is also a fake narrative, no one transformed anything both existed as two different words, "Jai Shri Ram" was already a war cry from before. Look at it: In the novel 'Miriam' by J. F. Fanthome published in 1896, the meaning of "Jai Sri Ram Lakshmanji Ki" is given as "the war cry of Brij-land and of the races who pay adoration to Krishna (Vaishnavism) as the chief deity of the Hindu pantheon" in the novel the expression was chanted by Hindus during the Indian Rebellion of 1857 against britishers.

3. "The Hindu fanatics have now also banished her from the popular greeting by changing Siya to 'Shri' (Lord)," Once again same propaganda, no one changed Siya to Shri both were used between 'Jai' & 'Ram' in greetings simultaneously since time immemorial. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * WP says: "Sociologist Jan Breman writes". It is true that he writes this, it's his words on the subject. Your "fake information" is again WP:OR. Again, summarizing scholarly sources on a topic is what we are supposed to do on this website, not look in drama and fiction looking for whatever, that is for your off-WP-writings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, novel not a WP:RS here (or for anything except plot in an article about that novel). Things are written in novels that never happened (not just there, of course). See the sourcing in the Pop-cult section, these things only (and per WP:PROPORTION, often not even then) have a on-WP interest if a decent independent source noticed and bothered to write something about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And while the dictionary by military officer from 1857 is a WP:RS for what it says, why aren't there better sources per WP:AGEMATTERS? There's also WP:RAJ to consider, though our subject is not caste. You appear very passionate to get anything from anywhere that resembles your "Jai Shri Ram translates to "Glory to Sita & Rama" or "Victory to Sita & Rama" position, no matter what WP:RS about our subject actually say. Take a look at WP:ADVOCACY, this is problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ADVOCACY applies to you too. You are too passionate to propagate that it is VHP or RSS who brought to us "Jai Shri Ram" around 1980s which is absolutely false. What is the reason to put it in the starting of article?.
 * You don't want to accept a decent reliance source, that says yes "Jai Shri Ram" was in use as salutation in 1857. Meaning can be changed by people like Jan Breman that's why sticking to oldest meaning available is a better idea.
 * BTW correct me if am wrong, Yes, novel can't be a reliable source as someone can show fiction too in novels. But what I have written about it using as wry cry was given in footnotes where the author defines the word used in novel. So basically it is not a part of story in the novel. It was given as a meaning. And should be considered as reliable. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, J. F. Fanthome, as R. V. Smith writes, had studied Indian social life and mores at close quarters as a sympathetic chronicler and supplemented his knowledge through bazaar news from servants. Any opinions on whether he, and the notes from Mariam as an extension, could be considered reliable? Or perhaps we directly attribute to Fanthome?
 * On a side note, we should also write these 3 articles including Mariam: A Story of the Indian Mutiny — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical on using footnotes in a novel, old or not, for anything "serious". If the novelist had good sources, perhaps those can tracked down. But again, old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And I'm ok with the phrase not originating in Ramayan (1987 TV series), it makes sense that the writer didn't pluck it out of thin air. To half-quote another tv-series, even if the word "frenchwoman" is first found in Shakespeare's writings, his audience probably knew what he was going on about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Also i am no more advocating that it means "glory to Sita & Ram", it maybe or may not be. Jai Sita Ram & Jai Shree Ram are two different expression, both used as salutation and one is not transformed from other, both exist as two different expression since centuries. whatever i added in article is in no way giving emphasis to calling it "glory to Sita & Ram".
 * They are many Hindus angry over why calling Jai Shri Ram a warcry, but actually Jai Shri Ram is a devotional chant, a salutation and a warcry too. It is a "war cry" but not "war cry against muslims".


 * AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about that, per Content disclaimer, WP has content that make all kinds of people angry. Pakistan blocked WP recently, but they changed their mind. Perhaps India will too (block WP), who knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

AbhishekSaini1910, can you state what changes on the main page you are seeking? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If you could try to move VHP and RSS part from short description to "During Ram Janmbhoomi Movement" as description should contain information about the expression and it's meaning, why is it important for Hindus etc. I have read other encyclopedias about Jai Shri Ram, they do include usage by nationalist part but before that they writes about usage in joy, usage in difficult times, usage in celebration ( as you will find on Takbir page of Wikipedia). AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:See also
I just added to this section, if anyone has opinions on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Large revert
, I have reverted probably the entire set of changes you have made over the last month or two. When I looked at the page, I found it almost unrecognizable. Almost all your content (some 22K bytes) is sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources, and is highly WP:UNDUE. Please find WP:SECONDARY sources for your issues, and then we can revisit them. Right now, I am putting my foot down and saying NO to PRIMARY sources, because it has gotten completely out of hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you mention some of the primary source I had cited? AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And why you want do you mean by unrecognizable, you want this page to be remain same and don't want want further edits and upgrades.
 * . AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you want this article to be written according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This page exists because "Jai Shri Ram" is used as a militant Hindu nationalist slogan, to perpetrate violence on non-Hindu minorities. Here is one, just a couple of days ago. All the other uses of "Jai Shri Ram" are peripheral. You either don't undersand that or you don't care about it. As a result, your effort to change the topic of the page, or to dilute it by adding loads of extraneous content, constitutes white-washing and propaganda. It can't be allowed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So your excuse of deleting all the content that added in the name of "Primary Sources" was a total lie.There was and is no intention of mine to white wash or to spread propaganda. I didn't removed any sourced material content solely because it seems biased to me. Instead, I tried to rewrite add some more details to achieve a more neutral tone that is what WP:NPOVHOW WP:BALANCE says.
 * So let me summarize it for all, you want only one aspect of "Jai Shri Ram" to appear on this article that is "its usage by militant Hindu to perpetrate violence" nothing else. It's usage as salutation by Bairagis in 1857, other uses like in temples for devotion, in time of joy, in extreme stress, in celebration doesn't matters. It's usage on Coins issued by Gharib Nawaz of Manipur in 1700s doesn't matter. It's 32,200 times in 13 Indian languages usage on silk saari by an Andhra Pradesh's hardworking weaver has no place in this article. All you want is negative expect of the expression in the article, Highly WP:UNDUE.
 * Then let me suggest you some changes.
 * Just change the title of this page to "Jai Shri Ram in Communal Incidents" WP:POVNAMING, as only that is what you want to show in this article because all other uses are peripheral.
 * And if you don't want to show it's usage before 1980s on this article than remove the paragraph titled 'Coinage' as we can't explain its coinage without mentioning it's earliest usages.(or change the paragraph title to "Starting of usage in Communal Incident")
 * Also remove the lines saying that it was transformed from Jai Siya Ram to Jai Shri Ram because that is factually incorrect as it was already a expression in 1700s, in 1857, in 1896 and throughout 20th century which can only be explained by mentioning it's earliest usage. (that is what I had added and you removed).
 * Currently according to you i can't add positive aspects and usages in this article, neither I can create new one as that would violate WP:NPOVFACT, so tell me where to add positive aspects. Where to write describe the dispute between usage of Jai Siya Ram & Jai Shri Ram (about which I added taking in account WP:IMPARTIAL).
 * Currently WP:STRUCTURE of this article demonizes a chant that was just a sacred expression before 1990s (which still is for majority of hindus), but got it reputation damaged due to its usage by some extremist militant in communal incident after 1990s. You either don't understand that or you don't care about. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Yes. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What matters and what doesn't matter is decided by reliable sources. You have no right to create your own BALANCE based on your own presumptions. If some particular usage is important, RS need to attest to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All my sources were reliable and secondary. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You just change the title of this page to "Jai Shri Ram in Communal Incidents" WP:POVNAMING, as only that is what you want to show in this article. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Slower, please
AbhishekSaini1910, please stop editing this article for a few days now, give other editors a chance to react. WP:CTOP, WP:CAREFUL and all that. Try to be less of a WP:SPA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I made in mind to not edit the article for sometime, but then one frustated-by-truth editor deleted all the content i edited, in the name of "primary source", but when asked to prove it he kind of shown hypocrisy.
 * He says this page was just created and exist because "Jai Shri Ram" is used as a militant Hindu nationalist slogan, to perpetrate violence on non-Hindu minorities, as if he is the owner of wikipedia and the one who decides what to add or not. But then i checked article history, it was created in 2007 but till 2018 there was no mention of such perpetration of violence. So his claim that his page existed just because of this cause was lie.
 * He considers adding positive aspects with reliable souces as white washing or propaganda, so when the negative aspects were added from 2018 to 2023 it was also a white washing and propaganda.
 * Let my reliably sourced material exist in this article i would not be this frequent in editing the article, as i have my own life and more works outside Wikipedia. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Current "Other uses" section
"Following the ground-breaking ceremony of the Ram Temple, Ayodhya, in August 2020, the slogan was used as a chant in celebrations in New York.

The slogan was used by lawyers after the 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute.

In April 2022, Jujaru Nagaraju, a handloom weaver in Andhra Pradesh weaved a 60 metre long silk sari with "Jai Sri Ram" written over 30 000 times in 13 Indian languages. He gave the name "Rama Koti Vastram" to the sari. "

IMO the weaver fits under pop culture (it's a broad term, modern art fits, and can someone translate the name, please), and the 2 other fits under "Politics". A Supreme court is a political body (in practise, if not always in theory), and the Ayodhya ref is full of ministers. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How can Ram Temple jingoism be "other uses"? That is the main use of the slogan, not diffused into the entire Hindu nationalist project. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats made up information and you assumption, nothing related to reality.
 * It was a slogan since time immemorial, used as salutation. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a name, it is not always necessary to translate a name. In pop culture if someone makes a robot and name it "sana","alexa" or whatever, is it necessary there exist a translation.
 * Although, from what i got to know from my grandfather, RamKoti is practice or a type of meditation by repetitively writing Rama's name. Koti translates to 1 crore or 10 million, so ultimate goal is to write it this many times, but one can write it lesser times as 1 koti is not possible for all.
 * Translation always do not depicts true meaning, same is the case here,"Rama Koti Vastram" exactly translates to "A cloth on which Rama's name is written 10 million times" but in this context it means "A cloth on which Rama's name is repeatedly written".
 * Cuttently i do not have sources for this translation, so its up to you if you want to accept it or not. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not always necessary, but since this article is for English-speaking readers, it's helpful if possible. It's why terms like "mandir" should have some explanation, in-text or otherwise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, when I wrote WP:PUFFERY I meant MOS:PUFFERY, sorry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Molesworth
I'm assuming that his "jayaśrīrāma" is pretty much the same as "Jai Shri Ram" and so not "antecedent". Am I wrong or don't we really know what he was thinking of, perhaps it's even off-topic? This is one of the problems with WP:AGEMATTERS problematic sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, per ref given can someone except the editor who adds it confirm the reading? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As i am the editor that added it i am not going to confirm it, but will help you to verify it.
 * Jaya Śrī Rāma is written in the very first line of the main article. So no need to assume, "jayaśrīrāma" indeed same as "Jai Shri Ram".
 * For more clarity take a look at digitized version by a University of Chicago [] AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Still unsure since it's written differently and one word, not a phrase, but unless someone challenges it, it can stay i guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Better source here. There are plenty of sources if you search for "Jaya Sri Rama". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave the same sources earlier, but you deleted all that content without even checking, the content in your source is directly copied from the source I gave earlier.
 * According to the books "Socialismo Antico" By Salvatore Cognetti De Martiis published in 1889, "Jaya Sri Rama", "Jaya Ram" & "Sita Ram" has been used as salutation by Ramanandi Sampradaya along with the use "Shri Ram" as the initiatory mantra.  Ascetics of these Vaishnava sampradayas such as Ramanandi Sampradaya, Sri Sampradaya, Nimbarka Sampradaya, follower of doctrine of Kabir, Dadu and other teachers are called bairagi. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * H. H. Wilson, quite authentic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good find. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, is there any difference in the meaning of Jai/Jaya here, or is it just different transliteration? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No difference. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be improvement to tweak the Antecedents heading to "Background" or something like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hanuman Chalisa
Can anyone find whom does the word "Shri-pati" (Shri's Husband) refers to, in the 13th verse of Hanuman Chalisa.

sahasa badana tumharo jasa gāvai। asa kahi shrīpati kantha lagāvai॥ 13 ॥

सहस्त्र बदन तुम्हरो यश गावैं। अस कहि श्रीपति कंठ लगावैं॥ १३ ॥ AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If you don't get a good reply here, you can try Reference desk/Language. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @AbhishekSaini1910 to me @Gråbergs Gråa Sång seems right. This discussion may be a little digression from scope of this article so I  tried to fork and  partial reply @   Reference desk/Language  &#32;Bookku    (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Kabir Khan on "Jai Shri Ram".
I want to add about Kabir Khan answer when he was asked why he used "Jai Shri Ram" in the movie bajrangi bhaijan?, from these sources, can anybody help what can I add and what not.



AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION, how about so:? Update:
 * The Explained: From assertive ‘Jai Shri Ram’, a reason to move to gentler ‘Jai Siya Ram’ article was interesting and on-topic though, and may have some more use.
 * "The “Jai Shri Ram” slogan had come to symbolise the Ram Janmabhoomi movement; on Wednesday, as the movement culminated in the first step of temple-building, there was, perhaps, no need for a battle cry anymore. The gentler salutation of “Jai Siya Ram” could return to Ayodhya. ... In the late 1980s, Sita was exiled again, as the Hindutva movement spread across India and “Jai Shri Ram” became its chosen battle cry. It decoupled Siya from Ram, stripping the invocation of gentleness and grace, recasting it instead as a singular show of muscular assertiveness. The changing chant was followed by a shift in image as well. The depiction of Ram in posters changed, with many doing away with Sita and showing a solo warrior prince instead. ... Sita may have gone missing from the corridors of power and salutations but her story of grace, resilience and courage lives on in many folk songs, bhajans and traditions of the country."
 * Perhaps some of this can have a place somewhere, mostly writer's opinion though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Indian Express explainer articles are quite good! Amazing amount of information in this one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But I don't buy Kabir Khan's anecdotal evidence. Numerous sources indicate that "Jai Shri Ram" was not used as a greeting/salutation, except in some closed circles (like the Ramanandis). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as we say that it is what he says, it's not glaringly awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but apparently people liked Khan's film. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a film maker defeding his choices, with childhood recollections doesn't carry much weight for me. As I said, he is explicitly contradicted by multiple sources.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter much, but if he was born 1968, your first point doesn't really contradict his childhood recollections, does it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It does. The VHP "Jai Shri Ram" slogan was never a friendly greeting. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was a salutation in 1857, how could it be sanskritised around 1990s? Both Jai Siya Ram & Jai Shri Ram were the salutations used as per Molesworth. This modification of Jai Siya Ram to Jai Shri Ram is mere speculation & conspiracy theory of various biased authors and will definitely be debunked as authors will write more about "Jai Shri Ram" in future.
 * I have read about Ramanandi in the last few days, it is not some so called "closed circle", Ramanandi sect was/is the largest sect of Vaishnavas. Both Ramanuj sect and Ramanandi sects belongs to Sri Sampradaya. For Ramanuja sect Lakshmi is the supreme deity therefore calls Lakshmi as Sri, and for Ramanadi sect Sita is the supreme deity and calls Sita as Sri.
 * Tulsidas who wrote Ramcharitmanas also belongs to Ramanandi Sect, therefore he refers to Rama as "Shri-Pati" (Shri's Husband) in Hanuman Chalisa's 13th verse. (I asked this on this talk page if it means something else please help). AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ascetics have their own subculture outside the mainstream society. Their practices don't automatically become mainstream practices.
 * "Shri" has many meanings.
 * I am afraid this talk page is getting out of hand. Please focus on finding good sources and summarising them. And argue less. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ascetics have their own subculture outside the mainstream society. Their practices don't automatically become mainstream practices.
 * "Shri" has many meanings.
 * I am afraid this talk page is getting out of hand. Please focus on finding good sources and summarising them. And argue less. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What about other two articles. There too he talked about same topic. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. The first one is "best" though, since it's about the topic of the WP-article. IMO the others don't add much (they may have use in other WP-articles, though), though I don't mind adding
 * "The director said he grew up hearing "Jai Shri Ram" as a benevolent expression, "rooted in our culture", but that the words have become agressive, and that "it bothers me to see how we are becoming increasingly intolerant"." per the other Indian Express.
 * However, I think the current writing is about right on his view WP:PROPORTION-wise (if it is to be included at all), in that Khan's view is a minor aspect of our topic. As I read it, his point is that Jai Shri Ram is not what it was. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, if you stick around, https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ may be of interest at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

On Manipur Coins
In which section should I add this.

As a devotee of Rama, Gharib Nawaz the Meitei ruler of Manipur Kingdom (1720-1751) issued several round & square bell-metal coins, five of which have 'Jai Shri', 'Jai Shri Ram', 'Ram', 'Shri Ram', 'Jai Ram' in Devanagari script and on one coin 'Shri Ram' is inscribed in Bengali script. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the Hindi source for someone who can read it. Debajit doesn't actually say Jai Shri Ram, so this source may be off-topic. Per, http://e-pao.net/ appears to be a WP:USERG source, not one we should use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You can use Google translate if you can't read Hindi. Exactly "Jai Shri Ram" is written in that source.
 * "The story of Garib Niwaz's devotion to Ram is also told by the six square coins issued by him, five of which have Jai Shree, Jai Shri Ram, Ram, Shri Ram, Jai Ram in Devanagari script and on the last, Shri Ram is inscribed in Bengali script."
 * BTW, i gave Debajit's source for "Shri Ram", as it was also mentioned in Hindi source.
 * I just gave 3rd source for further clarification nevertheless it was not reliable, so i removed it. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Google translate is imperfect (though often helpful), and no, I cant use it on that gbook. Also, please don't change your talkpage posts after someone has replied, see WP:REDACT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If that source checks out (not a pay-to-print publisher etc) something like "Gharib Nawaz, ruler of the Manipur Kingdom, issued coins with the phrase in the 18th century." may fit somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to add it main article as I am 100% with the source I cited. In which section should I add this. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023
Please change "and went on to use it as a battle cry. The slogan has since then been employed for perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths." to "." Dev Tatsat (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This particular statement appears extremely well supported - is there some reason that all 15 sources provided are insufficient for the inclusion of that statement? Tollens (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagreement on WP:LEAD-change, moved from my talkpage
You mentioned that my edit failed the Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" tests. I disagree.

My edit was "The expression gained prominence in the late 20th century, being associated with Indian Hindu nationalist organisations like the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and their allies. It was used as a means to increase the visibility of Hinduism in public spaces and was adopted as a rallying cry. However, it is worth noting that there have been claims of the slogan being used in instances of communal violence against people of other faiths." I do not know what failed the Reliable sources test as I neither added a new claim nor did I modify a source. Furthermore I do not understand how my edit failed the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view test as my edit did not give any false balance to any equal view. Even a cursory search can show that all my claims are easily verifiable through mainstream media articles in india Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


 * WP:RS doesn't say "there have been claims", they say it happened. That's watering down, like changing battle cry to rallying cry. This is a discussion for the article talkpage though, so I'll move it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the revert in question. Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If the source says "claims", use "claims"; if the source does not, do not; ditto re: battle/rallying cry. "Claims" is more generally a bit of a weasel word, so best avoided unless absolutely required. The reverted wording is not great grammar-wise though. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Calling it a "claim" is nonsense, since over a dozen sources have been provided, and there are dozens more that we haven't bothered to cite.
 * The change from "battle cry" to "rallying cry" requires sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hinduphobia
adding irrelevant word and making triggering remarks against faith of particular religion by presenting "jai shree ram" religion slogan as communal word is absolutely incorrect. And also question the neutral nature of wikipedia Peace4worlds (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed Rishi Sunak
Per these sources he said Jai Siya Ram, which, according to WP, is different. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the tradition comes, "Jai Shri Ram" is a muscular slogan, typically uttered by Hanuman in dramatic works to draw strength. "Jai Siya Ram" is devotional. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also a sound-byte, reported in the media without analytical content relevant to the slogan. I doubt it's even worth including in his biography, it's certainly out of place here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent change of leadimage


Opinions, editors? IMO, the Ayodhya statue (which has been the leadimage for quite awhile) makes sense, since Ayodhya-events are part of the topic. Also, I think I was told that this is the version of Rama that Jai Shri Ram chanters prefer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

For the interested
More politics. Not directly relevant for this article atm, but it may become so: India: Ram Temple in Ayodhya cements Modi's Hindu-nationalist legacy. Pageviews are spiking a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD consensus
Should the following text recently added to the lead section in Special:Diff/1197747373 be included in the article?

Or should the folowing text be removed or moved to the politics section from the lead section ?, based of past discussions and the opinion that it is biased and Hinduphobic from past discussions.

ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have to ask: have you actually read the article we are discussing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You mean those from the first sentence or those which i self added ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I mean: Have you read the Jai Shri Ram article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, i have, otherwise i wouldn't have made this consensus, i am not the only one who has noticed the ammount of negative bias. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The text you state was "recently added" was actually recently removed by you, it was restored by @Girth Summit. It's not recent, versions of it have been in the article for quite awhile ( and earlier), and can be considered the WP:STABLE version at this point.
 * Per WP:LEAD, something like "The expression was used by the Indian Hindu nationalist organisations Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their allies, which embraced the slogan in the late 20th century as a tool for increasing the visibility of Hinduism in public spaces, before going on to use it as a battle cry. The slogan has since been employed in connection with the perpetration of communal violence against people of other faiths." needs to be there, it's a significant part of the article, and can be argued to be an important part of why this article is on WP in the first palce (WP:N). Stuff is not excluded from the WP:LEAD for being considered "negative."
 * So, my suggestion is, echoing Girth Summit above, forget about the WP:LEAD for now. Focus on what to add to the article body about, we can call it "dissenting voices".
 * The article currently includes "In June 2019, a group of 49 artists, academics and intellectuals wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, requesting him to put a stop "to the name of Ram being defiled" as a war cry. They demanded that strict action be taken against using the slogan for violent purposes." Expanding on that with good WP:RS is an option (did they get a reply, btw?). There is also some opinion by Rahul Gandhi included, maybe somewhat relevant. Per the coverage I've seen, my impression is that the "dissenters" are minority in the Hindu community. I don't have a source on that, but it would be interesting content to add if there's anything good to cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Using Jay Shri Ram as something to spread violence goes directly against Rama's teachings. So the real dissenters are in my opinion those people that use it to spread violence. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are five sources listed to support the assertion however this usage has been denounced by other Hindus, but none of them are appropriate. The first one, 'Yours Positively', seems to be a piece of polemic by someone called Oswald Pereira. It would work as a primary source for his own views on the matter, but it's not clear why his view is particularly significant or representative of anyone; he's also very vague about what uses of the phrase he is being critical of. The TRT World source appears not to support the assertion at all - maybe I've missed it, but I don't see anything in there about Hindus denouncing the use of the phrase. Theheghousediary is a WordPress blog, it's not reliable for anything. Satyaagrah also appears to be self-published and unreliable. The Hindu American source does not seem to support the assertion in any way. In short, the assertion is, as yet, unsupported by any reliable sources. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TRT-source states "“They are using it as a war chant…," said Mohan Guruswamy, a political analyst and Chairman of the Delhi-based Centre for Policy Alternatives "They say, chant Jai Shri Ram and I will welcome you. This is unacceptable. It is not in confidence with what the constitution of India endeavours and inspires from. It is a worrisome trend because it now seems to have official sanction." This is sort-of on topic (Hindus denouncing), but it's one person's opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but it doesn't say whether or not Guruswamy is speaking on behalf of Hindus, or I need indeed whether he is a Hindu himself. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very true, point taken. Not like Pereira, who's obviously a Hindu. The Hindu American source seems to be a WP:BLOG too, btw. Just because something is online it's not necessarily a WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably the vast majority of stuff online is unreliable? Irtapil (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there's a WP-article on that org:Hindu American Foundation. Which they're not too happy about: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD disagreement
@ThatBritishAsianDude Again on this:, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the body. Obviously "misuse" is one way to look at it, but clearly there's a lot of "users" who'd disagree. If sources are good (no WP:BLOGS etc), that view can be included somewhere, but putting it in the WP:LEAD like you do is wrong on several levels, including WP:RNPOV. You're putting your religious or ideological view in Wikipedia's voice, don't do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ping if you wish to comment. Other editors, if you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * is correct - whether they are using it or misusing it is a subjective judgment, which is not something that we do in Wikipedia's voice, regardless of how many editorials make that judgment. It might be appropriate for Wikipedia to say somewhere in the article that numerous commentators have described cases of it being employed as 'misuse', but we wouldn't say that it is misuse in Wikipedia's voice. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if they are misusing it, they are using (or employing) it ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed - that they are using or employing is neutral, factual and uncontrovertibly accurate; whether it's misuse is a value judgment. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe your right but why is 'Jai Shree Ram being a something that is used by politicians and communal violence in the lead. Shouldn't that be in the politics section. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's another question, and one which I don't have a ready opinion on. I guess it would depend on how prominently such usage has been discussed in reliable sources, and how much there is in the body of the article about such usage. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the WP:LEAD is a summary of the body of the article. Politics and violence is a significant part of the subject, so per WP:LEAD it's mentioned in the lead. The subject is a very political one, regrettable as that may be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But isn't politics and violence being a significant part of the subject a opinion in itself. This article is about the meaning of the slogan. There is already a politics section shouldn't the politics and violence part be moved to that section. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is about more than the meaning of the slogan, WP is not a dictionary. It's not an opinion that politics and violence is a lot of the content in this WP-article. Nothing on WP is perfect, but the goal is that a WP-article on any topic should be a summary of WP:RS about that topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am just saying that the lead already summarizes the article and it doesn't make sense to include that in the lead it should be included in the specific sections. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I think that WP:LEAD is clear that it's reasonable to include it. We disagree, it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:LEAD does it say to include politics and violent incidents in the lead section. And even if it is included it should be neutral, like saying normal hindus renounce these acts. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
 * You may disagree that this is relevant to our disagreement.
 * On this article stating something about "normal hindus", then you need good WP:RS that clearly states "normal hindus renounce these acts", and find a place for it in the body of the article first, then maybe it will be fitting for the WP:LEAD. This source, that you added to the lead earlier, states "We are yet to see any condemnation of the ‘misuse’ of the sacred name Ram by any religious leader or body." Perhaps there are other views than yours on what a "normal hindu" is? Try also to see your writing through the eyes of those hindus you don't consider "normal". And fwiw, WP has readers and editors that aren't Hindus.
 * If you can find WP:RS for something like "Mother Meera renounced [whatever she renounced]..." that may have a place somewhere, probably not the lead though. Perhaps Category:21st-century Hindu religious leaders can give you some inspiration. "The Hindu renounced..." could also be interesting. "Blogger X renounced...", probably not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So if i am able to find anything how should i add it to the lead section ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD and what I said above, you probably shouldn't. Per WP:CTOP etc, consider WP:RECKLESS going forward. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With a source, i don't see why not. There is no harm in adding for example Most hindus condemm these acts. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead exists to summarise the body of the article - that's literally why it's there. You can't add stuff to the lead that isn't in the body of the article. So, step 1 is to add the content to the relevant section of the article, and get agreement that the sourcing is reliable, and that the content is a faithful summary of it. Step 2 is to then summarise that content in the lead. There is an active discussion going on here - I suggest that you propose you changes here on the talk page, and implement them once there is agreement. I'm genuinely not trying to be a random roadblock here - I want this article to be as good as it can be, I don't want to offend anyone, and I don't want to frustrate other editors. But seriously: you can't add stuff into the lead that isn't anywhere in the body of the article, that just isn't on. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, is adding things in the body of the article that distuingish between the real meaning and the disorted use of the slogan well allowed ? Since i am still of the opinion the lead needs to be more neutral and eventually needs to change. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If those things are properly sourced, then yes they could be added to the body of the article. It would need to be carefully worded though - nothing in Wikipedia's voice should be written about 'real meanings' and 'distorted use'. Those are value judgments, and would need to be attributed to the person making them. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reaction, just found this article (https://forbinfull.org/2022/09/27/jai-shri-ram-on-the-streets-of-leicester-as-indias-hindu-nationalism-stretches-beyond-its-borders/), where it clearly mentions that the people who used it during violent incidents appropriated the slogan deviating from the original usage. Can i add something about this in the body of the article under Usage, since this isn't mentioned anywhere including in the lead where it says employed instead of appropriated ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:BLOG by a person at the Christian charity Christian Solidarity Worldwide. Something like
 * A representative of the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) said in 2022 "Sadly, the expression has taken on far more sinister connotations in recent years. For far-right Hindu nationalists in India, who have been significantly emboldened over the past eight years under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the slogan has been appropriated as a rallying cry for violent extremists."
 * would be supported by the source, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the article that isn't pretty much there already. Employed and appropriated is here just synonyms of used, that's how I read it anyway. Well, that's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * appropriated and employed are defintely not synonyms since with appropriated they mean that it is used different than the intended usage, but if doesn't change anything than i see no harm in adding it then ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you shouldn't per WP:BLOG, but that's me. I can see your point on appropriate, the verb has a hint of dislike/this is wrong, like misuse discussed above. Funny thing that the adjective ("this is appropriate") means the opposite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For me it's more about the negative meaning employed in the lead has, and that appropriated sounds more neutral. So if i want to change/replace that, is it allowed with this source ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't get a reply, can i change employed in conncection with to appropriated ? ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Frankly, we don't know enough about the history of usage of "Jai Shri Ram" to say anything definitive. I see British press mostly saying it was "appropriated" and claiming that it was devotional earlier, but they are certainly no authorities on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, in 2022 Leicester riots, "Allah-o-Akbar" was used first, and then Hindus responded with "Jai Shri Ram". British Press is blind to Islamism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But lately, I also see ordinary Hindus reclaiming it back from the VHP and the Sangh Parivar, and starting to use it in everyday life. It also seems to be becoming a symbol of defiance, resistance and assertion of Hindu rights where Hindus are in a minority or becoming targets of persecution. So it is not possible to say any more that it is necessarily a Hindu nationalist slogan. Time will tell. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you perhaps have any sources on those british articles and hindus reclaiming the term ? I am trying to add more neutral and less negative things like this in the body of the article, help  would be really appreciated. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing specific yet. I recall seeing a Channel 4 programme where one of the organisers of the Hindu march was interviewed. He didn't have anything specific to say about why "Jai Shri Ram" was picked Just that it seemed a good slogan to use. The point is that it wasn't the only slogan they used. They also used "Ganapati Bappa Moria", they said "Bharat Mata ki Jai", they said "Vande Mataram" etc. But the Press picked only Jai Shri Ram.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ThatBritishAsianDude, I strongly suggest that you begin by summarizing the sources you believe support your changes here on the talk page. Many of the sources you used last time were not fit for purpose, and indeed many of them don't contradict our text at all, as they are criticisms of contemporary usage, rather than definitions of how the phrase is used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank for your suggestion, i'll definitely look into it. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't understand the clear cut bias
So I just checked this " Takbir" article and decided to search this article. The bias cannot be more apparent. Clearly we see the difference in the treatment of the subject. Whereas the takbir, is treated as purely religious slogan, and the overall tone of the article is also suggestive of that. But in this article the topic first and foremost has been made to be a political one with personal opinion affecting the content. I want to ask what is the basis for conclusion? I mean the violent history and nature of the " Allahu Akhbar" slogan is not a secret to anyone. If all that doesn't make it qualify to be termed as a in the lead "battle cry", then how does "jai shree ram" become one? If the WP:LEAD is a summary of the whole article then where's the mention of "takbir's" usage as a battle cry by all the terrorist in the lead section? And if it doesn't apply there then on what basis it is portrayed in this article? That to in the lead section!

The usage of "Jai shree ram" is quite old and has been a important part of religio-social lifestyle of Hindus. The fact that editors here could not find any sources supporting it is quite suspicious when the vast array of published material for the same is not scarce. Satyamsha (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Both articles are supposed to be a summary of WP:RS on the subject. How close they are to that goal is open for debate, IMO nothing on WP is perfect, it is made by people.
 * Per the nature of WP, there will be differences, some may be because different people have shown interest in different WP-articles, but also because subjects are not treated the same by WP:RS. See discussions like Talk:Takbir and Talk:Takbir. "This particular WP-article is not like this other particular WP-article in this particular way" is not a fruitful argument on this website per WP:OTHERCONTENT.
 * You can suggest specific changes based on WP:RS to this WP-article on this talkpage, and the same goes for Takbir. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can show you reliable sources but what has any WP:RS got to do anything with the insertion of the second paragraph in the lead? At this point that is just an editorial forced assertion. That section defeats the whole purpose of the article and making it look like a opinion piece rather than a encyclopaedic material.
 * And no I have read all your comments and none of the justification are satisfactory. If you are a senior editor I'd request you to open a discussion on this. Satyamsha (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph in the lead is there because WP:LEAD. The WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here look at this. Shouldn't it be in the lead as you are claiming? Satyamsha (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)