Talk:Ram Mandir

Bibliography

• Bakker, Hans T. (1984). Ayodhya, Part I: The History of Ayodhya from the 7th century BC to the middle of the 18th century. Institute of Indian Studies, University of Groningen. OCLC 769116023.
• Jain, Meenakshi (2013), Rama and Ayodhya, New Delhi: Aryan Books, ISBN 978-8173054518
• Jain, Meenakshi (2017), The Battle for Rama, New Delhi: Aryan Books, ISBN 978-81-7305-579-9
• Kunal, Kishore (2016), Ayodhya Revisited, Prabhat Prakashan, pp. 335–, ISBN 978-81-8430-357-5
• Layton, R.; Thomas, P. (2003). "Introduction". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. (eds.). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 1–21. ISBN 978-1-134-60497-5.
• Srivastava, Sushil (1991), The Disputed Mosque: A Historical Inquiry, Vistaar Publications, ISBN 978-81-7036-212-8 – via archive.org

Hindi script

Why Ram Mandir is not written in Devnagari script in the lead? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 15:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be against WP:INDICSCRIPT to do so.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like some misinterpretation of WP:INDICSCRIPT, as it only applies to predominantly India-related article, and it is clearly mentioned that articles which under Hinduism subject are exempted from this policy, and in this case it's a Hindu temple. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 05:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Ram Mandir is an article on a building in India. It is not an article on Hinduism. Articles like Hindutva and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are not considered to be articles on Hinduism, and so do not have Indic script in the lead or the infobox. The article on Hindu temple has Indic script in the {{Hinduism}} template but it is in the form of a .png file.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

That's why it is written predominantly India-related, Article mentioned above, Hindutva and RSS are predominantly India-related because one is based on the ideology prevailing specifically in India, and RSS is a volunteer organisation in India, both consists of some sort of Hinduism but not mainly composed of, it's quite similar to saying in a AfD discussion that it should be kept because other articles which are also not notable exists on the platform WP:OSE. While, Ram Mandir is not just a building in India, if it was just a building it would not have a article like this one, it's a popular Hindu temple and clearly falls under Hinduism. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 08:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Should I consider your silence, a indication of agreement ? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 06:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

While it is related, the subject is not about Hinduism. WP:NOINDICSCRIPT thus applies. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not entirely related to India like Prime Minister of India, India, Delhi, these article have nothing to do with Hinduism, exactly the type of article on which the WP:INDICSCRIPT is supposed to be applied. Already stated by you that it's related to Hinduism, that where the discussion ends. Moreover, it comes under WikiProject Hinduism assessed as High-Importance. I repeat, this article is not supposed to follow the WP:INDICSCRIPT just like other articles related to Hinduism. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 09:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@VortexPhantom: Stop writing, listen, and consider what others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

By reconsidering, the Ram Mandir is not completely related to Hinduism, but even though, it doesn't either completely lies within scope of only India. Ram Mandir is mixture of both and I would also say it is related to other projects too. Ram Mandir doesn't relies mainly on India. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 08:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at five of the temples listed on the first page of Category:High-importance Hinduism articles. They all abided by the WP:INDICSCRIPT rule, just like Ram Mandir. There are other temple articles at Category:Mid-importance Hinduism articles and Category:Low-importance Hinduism articles; and they seem to abide by the WP:INDICSCRIPT rule too. This is an indication of how the rule is commonly interpreted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's what I found, Kedarnath Temple, Bhojshala, Kaal Bhairav Temple, Gibraltar Hindu Temple, Maya Devi Temple, Haridwar, Mrityunjay Mahadev Mandir, Patan Devi, Sri Siva Subramaniya Temple and so on, uses INDICSCRIPT in either lead or infobox ranging importance from high to mid. Isn't it odd? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 13:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problem if I add INDICSCRIPT, if there is problem, follow up here. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 12:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And I have explained the reasons above.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Who does the indic script aid, exactly? The large majority of the readers of the English Wikipedia do not speak and read languages using Devnagari. The ones that do are already going to be able to transliterate accurately. If you wish to educate readers unfamiliar with the subject, adding IAST or IPA transliterations would be far more useful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That's the question I would like to answer, Ram Mandir is based in North India where Hindi speakers significantly outnumber the English ones. I think it's always better to include local language to aid the readers coming from that background while maintaining transliteration for the people who are not from North India, for better experience and understanding to readers. While, Ram Mandir is itself a Hindi word. Most people who will read this article will eventually come from North India. Hindi is the 4th most-spoken language in the world which is spoken widely in North India and significantly in South India, I don't think adding a Devnagri script will ever cause a problem, since it's a merit. Moreover people coming for religious purposes, tend to use this language more frequently as it is based in their cultures and traditions. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 12:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Most people who will read this article will eventually come from North India. Article viewership does not depend solely on the location of the article's subject. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Avoid Misusing WP: STABLE to obstruct editing

Hi Zalaraz, While I assume good faith, you seem to be persistently attempting to enforce an old, outdated version, misusing the stable version argument, and deleting large amounts of well-cited factual content that has been added after TALK page discussions. Such edits violate WP:TALK, WP:BRD, and WP:STABLE, as you did not review the related TALK page discussion and did not discuss on the TALK page before large deletions.

In this edit on 5 April 2026 , you deleted a lot of content without any TALK page discussion, and restored an outdated version, which said: The Ram Mandir is a partially constructed Hindu temple complex in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India.

The information was outdated and incorrect, and also conflicted with the Article body, which correctly mentioned from WP: RS sources, that the temple construction had been completed:

On November 25, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi participated in the flag-hoisting ceremony at the temple, symbolising the completion of its construction. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/inside-making-ram-mandir-ayodhya-workers-years-10389016/

Recently on 27 June 2026, in this edit , you deleted large content, much of which was based on the TALK page discussion on adding more context to the historical timeline, and summarizing architectural details from the article body in the lead.

So, you are restoring old and outdated versions without any TALK page discussion, which is considered disruptive editing.

You are also vaguely misuing Whitewashing argument, without discussing what specific statements you find problematic. In fact most of the deletions were factual information, without any opinions, and had been discussed on TALK page, so the Whitewashing argument is not justified, unless discussed. You are also obstructing my good faith edits, which is considered disruptive editing.

Also, please review WP:STABLE more carefully, before using it again. It says: Restoring the article to a stable version is not required, nor is it encouraged by any policy or guideline.

Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way; boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content or page revisions is a form of disruptive editing.

Again, I assume good faith at this time, and hope that you will not misuse WP:STABLE again in the future to make large deletions, and not obstruct my good faith edits. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Each edit that is disputed needs affirmative consensus for inclusion per WP:ONUS. Do not restore your edits without it. Zalaraz (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zalaraz,

Again, you seem to be trying to obstruct my editing, by misusing WP:ONUS. None of my edits were disputed by any other editor. Infact, most of them were based on TALK page discussion and reasonable consensus. Only you suddenly came in and deleted them without any discussion on TALK page. You cannot call any edit disputed and delete it.

See Wikipedia:BURDEN, every well-cited edit with WP:RS references does not require WP:ONUS.

If you continue to delete well-cited factual content, without any discussion, it will be considered disruptive editing.

Avoid misusing Wikipedia policies to enforce your preferred version.

No one owns a Wikipedia page, See WP:OWN, before making such claims.

Again note:

Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way; boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content or page revisions is a form of disruptive editing.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zalaraz,, Before misusing WP:ONUS to delete any content, please note the following:

WP:ONUS does NOT say:

that any editor can permanently veto new content simply by objecting;

that existing content always wins because it is older;

that "stable version" automatically overrides well-sourced additions;

that consensus requires unanimous agreement.

So, please do not obstruct editing of other editors on this page by misusing WP:ONUS, as it will be considered disruptive editing. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The version you have been reverting is neutral.

You are moving neutral content outside the lead, such as the content about misuse of funds, BJP's politicization and more. Then you are also adding undue puffery about the temple. It is unacceptable. Zalaraz (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Please mention each edit that you disagree with, and I will be happy to discuss it.

About "misuse of funds", I am fine with including it in the lead.

In fact, I was the first editor to include details about the 2026 Misappropriation of funds in both the article body and the lead summary.

See edit

Revision as of 23:02, 19 June 2026 RogerYg →Impact and associated activities: references for donation embezzlement

Also, I summarized it in the lead: Some allegations of misappropriation of donations have led to investigations and administrative changes.

You reverted that, and later, I think you probably added the 2026 misappropriation to the Fundraising (pre-construction) section, which made it confusing for readers. Someone else has now separated it into a different section, which is better.

About "BJP's politicization", I am okay to include it in Lead.

I am fine with including the statement about misuse of funds and BJP politicization: The temple has attracted controversy over the alleged misuse of donation, sidelining of its major activists, and politicisation of the temple by the Bharatiya Janata Party., which is the main concern that you have mentioned.

If you have a problem with any other edit, I am happy to discuss each of those per WP:TALK, but mass deletion without discussion is considered disruptive

Many edits you deleted were based on TALK page discussion and consensus, such as:

Adding more context to the historic timeline paragraph is discussed above on TALK page topic: "Request for additional context in lead section."

You deleted it without checking the TALK page discussion.

Also, adding the architecture summary to Lead was based on the discussion on the TALK page.

But you deleted all these edits, without any discussion.

In the future, discuss any specific edit you disagree with on the TALK page before making any deletion, per WP:TALK. Thanks for your cooperation and for avoiding disruptive editing in the future. RogerYg (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2026

Update the Architecture section to add Girish Sahasrabhojanee as the Design and Construction Manager. https://acr.iitbombay.org/news/from-iit-bombay-to-ayodhya-iitb-alumnus-girish-sahasrabhojanees-ram-mandir-journey/ Adwait.s94 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)