Talk:Ram Janmabhoomi

Which Ayodhya is the original one?
the Hindu text Ramayana mentions Ayodhya but does not specify its location, only the name of an supposed town, there is no archaeological evidence that this old Ayodhya is the same Ayodhya (in addition, the old name of Ayodhya (in 26.80°N 82.20°E) used to be called Faizabad.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.99.144 (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

82.44.179.214 edits and 62.189.60.30's vandalism
The edits by 82.44.179.214 in this aricle and the Babri mosque article used phrases like: The media is projecting only the Nazi view-point...And these Nazis are the very people who often boast that "judiciary is the only hope of India".

His edits also talked about offtopic allegations like about the Taj Mahal, needs to be sourced and npov'ed. A large section is excerpted from KP Prakasam Ayodhya:Questions of History which could be a copyright violation. I'm adding a clean up tag to the article.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msiev (talk • contribs) 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

RAMA Birth
Why not create an additional topic Rama's birth where this issue can be addressed.This is an encyclopedia not based on Brittanica and whatever is said there is not the final word on the topic.The cases are still pending in Indian courts where Hindu parties have to prove that a temple commemorating Ram's birth was standing there.When the courts have not given their verdict .How can you write that here.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.60.30 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We can also report the opinion of the courts. If we report the opinion of the courts, whatever it is, does not mean that other opinions are not mentioned.

Temple Picture Copyright violation

 * This picture comes from VHP site and is possibly a copyright violation.

http://www.vhp.org/englishsite/images/mandirhead.jpg - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.60.30 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting contents on talk pages
I dont see a reason why POVs on talk pages should be removed.I have seen many instances on this page .Why?- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.110.222 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Recontruction
Till courts verdict it should be contrcution and not reconstruction.Secondly, if Ram temple reconstruction is mentioned why not mention what the otyher party has done to reconstruct the mosque.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.110.222 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Shah Bano
The Shah Bano affair was mentioned in more details in one previous edit and while it is good to understand that Hindus felt offended, there is the other side to it - it was taken by Hindu parties badly while Muslims felt it as an interference in their rights as both the aggrieved  parties in this case were Muslims and it changed the provisions of Muslim personal law having no bearing on the Hindus.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.110.222 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024
The article suggests and uses the word "Hindu Nationalists". It is incendiary language designed to provoke. You need to modify this or also use 'Muslim zealots'to compensate.

The Hindus have long believed Ayodhya to be the brithplace of Lord Rama. 161.69.114.48 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Is evidence "scant"?
"However, the historical evidence for these beliefs is scant."

The following paragraphs seems to contradict this sentence. Should the world not be "Some believe however..."?

I notice a similar theme throughout articles related to South Asia where some opinion is provided as fact but is completely contradicted by a mountain of paragraphs that are also on the article itself. Arind8 (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Scant evidence?
It is not upto wikipedia to decide whether the evidence is scant or plenty. The book referenced for the claim is by Kunal Kishore and is maliciously quoted. He indeed believes that evidence for Babar destroying the mosque is scant but he believes aurangzeb destroyed it. The present article is deliberately and maliciously quoting his first opinion as fact that Babar didn't destroy the temple but not quoting the 2nd opinion. The entire statement of scant evidence in the article gives an impression that there is no evidence of non Islamic structure below the mosque, which is totally incorrect.

There are multiple Muslim and British era literary sources which attest to the destruction of the temple to build mosque at the site. Do you want 4K video of Mir Baki coming in with military to destroy the temple? You can always put the alternative interpretation of evidence but writing "scant" is malicious

Who has the authority to decide if the evidence is scant or plenty?

Factpineapple (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)