Talk:Ram Janmabhoomi

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2025

Please the following to the "see also" section

* Punaura Dham, Sita birthplace temple corridor 
* Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex

Thank you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Weak Sources, Communal influence.

So many sources on the section containing 'evidence', so the ASI survey results are sourced from TimesNow. I mean seriously? And we have editors saying that Hindu nationalists cannot be used a term without an equivalent use of Muslim zealots? What? This entire page needs deletion, or a massive warning about lack of sources and self referencing. PostColonialSouthAsians (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality &fringe

@EarthDude: could you please explicate your tags? Otherwise I'll remove them. Regards Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: It's almost impossible to find good sources to write about this topic, given the ASI report has never been released. Most of the books are by Hindu amateurs with an understably pro-Hindu perspective that seeks to use the frankly sparse evidence we have about the history of the area to construct a narrative about how we can be absolutely certain a Hindu temple to Ram was historically at the site and was demolished to make way for the Babri Masjid, even though the evidence from the archaeological site that has been released seems far less certain on this question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

What the ASI says is mostly irrelevant to this. The ASI also says that the Ram Mandir once existed, which is completely rejected by mainstream scholarly consensus. Similarly, the idea that the Ram Janmabhoomi in any way correlates to the modern day location of Ayodhya is a WP:FRINGE and pseudohistorical view, aligned with Hindutva. As per Wiki policy, such views should not be given WP:UNDUE weight, which they are in this article — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Where is this "mainstream scholarly consensus"? I was able to find very little scholarly writing on this topic on looking on Google scholar, and most of it dates to around the initial demolition in the early 1990s, well before the ASI report was released. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The ASI itself is not considered to be a reliable source, similar to how the Supreme Court of India's wordings aren't taken as "reliable sources". In reliable and scholarly sources, the claim that the Ram Janmabhoomi or Ayodhya of Hindu mythology, in any way correlate to modern-day city of Ayodhya, or that the Babri Masjid was built on a supposed Hindu temple, are still seen as religious and ideological, and not at all factual. The "findings" of the ASI have not changed this consensus among the scholarly community. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with EarthDude. The article needs to be more critical about the 21st century findings than what it has been so far. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)