Talk:Ram Ke Naam

Historical evidence
"According to hearsay, a temple to Rama stood at the site and was demolished by Baqi; however, there is little historical evidence to support this.[2]" I don't see any mention of historical evidence in the cited India TV news review and, in any case, the citation is too weak for such a weighty assertion. I suggest that you look at History of Ayodhya section to see what can be said. In my understanding, there is no eye witness testimony of a temple prior to the mosque, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. In fact, the Harsh Narain's book itself apparently gives plenty such. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, this was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant to say is that limited historical evidence exists for the demolition of the temple. Do you want to take a stab at fixing it, since you seem to have current access to the Narain book, and I do not? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't (yet) have the Narain book, but I have a fair idea of what is in it from the right-wing descriptions of it. For a contentious subject like this, we need to use the best possible sources, and those are in my opinion Hans T. Bakker, Sheldon Pollock and van der Veer. I take all Indian sources to be biased unless proved otherwise. I will take a stab at revising the statements. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How about the scientific evidence of a temple like structure under the mosque? .-sarvajna (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Archaeology is not that simple. In any case, scientific evidence should be presented in scientific journals, not newspapers.  But the issue is quite a bit more straightforward, at least for me. Two British writers, Carnegy and Bennet, have written something like "Prior to the 1853-55 dispute, Hindus and Muslims alike used to worship in this mosque-temple". Any sensible person should ask:
 * Why was it a "mosque-temple"?
 * How did a "mosque-temple" in 1853 turn into a "mosque" in 1857?
 * The fact that they don't ask these questions is quite exasperating. Some people do ask if you look through this list. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Archaeology is not that simple I wonder why you would make such a statement since no one claimed that it is simple, In any case, scientific evidence should be presented in scientific journals, not newspapers so a news paper reporting some discovery will not be considered a reliable source?. I would ignore the rest of your argument. They are more suited on some forum. -sarvajna (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, newspapers are never reliable sources for the publication of scientific results. They can report on scientific results published in scientific journals or books. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The ASI report was not published in the newspaper. The newspaper just reported about the findings. -sarvajna (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The newspaper is not reporting on the ASI report, but rather the notes from one court-appointed observer. (Actually, I rather think it reproduced verbatim some written draft from Mishra, because the reporter didn't seem to have a clue what it was actually saying.) But, since we are supposed to represent scholarly consensus, we have to also report what the other observers said. Once you do that, you will notice that this is not "scientific evidence" any more but rather a bunch of scientists' opinions. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

IMDB rating
I am not very sure about the IMDB ratings, they are usually provided by the users and not experts. I was not able to find any convincing answers here, if there is a convention to use it then fine. It hardly adds anything to the article IMO.-sarvajna (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe they are screened ratings, but not 100% sure. Ideally, I would use an aggregator like metacritic, but those have no entries for this film. The rating quantifies the reception in ways that prose summaries of reviews do not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IMDb ratings are based on users and they do weight the ratings through undisclosed means. []. However WikiProject Film MOS recommends not using them as they are prone to fixing and don't offer a fair demographic representation. []. Cowlibob (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cowlibob, that is fair. I have removed it for now. I have not worked extensively on film articles. I wonder, however, whether that guideline would change based on the availability of other ratings. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally for film articles, audience response is only shown by box-office figures and the reception section is largely left to reviews by critics. So you'll have to try your best to find local sources for reviews, unfortunately. Cowlibob (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)