Talk:Rama

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2026

please add that rama was a descendant of famous figures such as harischandra, prithu, dashratha and trishanku through his father. ~2026-34097-69 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 14:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2026

~2026-35476-46 (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Lord was partial avatar or ansh avatar of the lord Vishnu in ramayan book and lord rama was fair skin tone white gore the raam

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

why is the art thai? what is more rama in thai than in hindu art?

why is the chosen pic what it is? PurpleZingbat (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about the main picture? While your question is not clear, it does raise question on main image, and I will address that question in a separate topic, as I would like to change it to a better image. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Image update

There have been several requests for a better main image appropriate for a prominent Deity, such as Rama, as of Aug 9, 2026.

The current image, as of August 9, 2026, File: Lord Rama with arrows.jpg, has multiple issues per WP:IMAGE, due to which is needs to be changed to a more appropriate image. According to Wikimedia Commons, the current image is a painting of the Hindu deity Rama by an unknown author, acquired by a British man, Rupert Richardson-Gardner, in India around 1820, when he was there dealing mainly in carpets and rugs. Though it is now at the British Museum, it is listed as a painting by an unknown author. This raises concerns about WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Also, a major issue in the currennt image is that the description accepts: Rāma, unusually sporting a moustache, stands on a small pedestal., which brings into question: Image relevance / encyclopedic value per WP:IMAGE, and an image can be rejected even if its unusual characteristic can be misleading, and there are better images that more accurately illustrate the subject.

On Wikimedia Commons, a better image that addresses the above issues is available. The image is: Rama with joy.jpg from Adhyatm Ramayan, 1932 published by a widely known Indian publisher Gita Press, Munilal, Adhyatmaramayan, Vaidik Granth, 1932, Gorakhpur: Gita Press, 427 pages. So, it addresses WP:Verifiability. Gita Press images are widely used on Wikipedia, such as on Dasharatha. The image has widely accepted usual characteristics, as is commonly regarded for Gita Press images in India, so it addresses the above issues of Image relevance / encyclopedic value. Additionally, the image is reasonably good quality, especially in the cropped version: Rama in Adhyatma Ramayana.jpg. Therefore, it is appropriate as the main image, and I have updated it on Aug 10, 2026. Please discuss if you have any questions. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The concerns you brought up on the old image do not actually break WP:V and WP:NPOV. The source is verifiably of Rama, and there is nothing about the image that violates a neutral point of view.

The main issue with the old image is the presence of a mustache. However the new image has an even bigger issue, the lack of the tribhanga posture which exists in the old image. The importance of the tribhanga pose is such that it has a sourced mention in the iconography section. The thribhanga is a much more immediately noticable feature which is now absent, compared to mustache which quite small. Therefore, until a suitable image is found that has both the tribhanga and lack of mustache, the image with the more common feature Lord_Rama_with_arrows.jpg is more appropriate.Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but I would have to humbly disagree, as the points you raised do not justify using an image from an Unknown artist which has unusual characteristic of "mustache" per WP:Image, WP:Verificability and WP:NPOV.

You have rasied the issue of Tribhanga posture, whic in your personal view is a bigger issue, but that is only an opinion of some scholars. Only 1 cited sources in the article on this issue is from a non-reputable publisher, Motilal Banarsidass (T. A. Gopinatha Rao|title=Elements of Hindu iconography|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MJD-KresBwIC|year=1993|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass)

However, Rama's icons and sculptures are often well regarded in other postures. For example

Small bronze figurine of Rama, avatar of Vishnu and hero of the Ramayana epic, standing on a round lotus base in the curved abhanga pose.

https://collection.powerhouse.com.au/object/319637

Also, many temple sculptures identify Sri Rama standing in Ayata Sthana and Abhanga posture, holding the bow and arrow.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/gallery/sculptures-in-temples-in-kumbakonam/2593.

We can include this Tribhanga posture image in the relevant section of Iconography, but not as the main image, given the above reasons.

Most traditional sources agree that Rama is generally a standing figure, holding bows and arrows, but there is no one pose or posture for Rama. Thanks again for your kind cooperation. RogerYg (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Another source on this issue, this one for Dvibhange posture for actual consecrated Rama as temple deity

“A fine figure of Sri Rama at Chennakesava temple in Markapuram, Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh. The wall of the gopura inside a sala-kosta, Sri Rama stands in dvibangha and holds arrow in the right hand and bow in the left…”

Govindu, S (2024), Ramayana Themes Depicted in the Temple Art of Andhradesa: A Special Reference to Rayalaseema, Journal of Visual and Performing Arts. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Etymology

While etymology mentions that Rama is also known as Ram, Raman, Ramar,[α] and Ramachandra (/ˌrɑːməˈtʃəndrə/;[27] IAST: Rāmacandra, Sanskrit: रामचन्द्र). Rāma is a Vedic Sanskrit word with two contextual meanings. Most commonly, Rama is also known as Ram in many reliable scholarly sources; therefore, it should be mentioned in the lead. Many Wikipedia articles note also-known-as names, such as Odysseus.

Here are some sources, which I will add as references for "Ram" and Sri Ram

• Revisiting “Being Ram”; Oxford Academic. https://academic.oup.com/book/39322/chapter-abstract/338939428
• Many Ramayanas: The Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/public/book/many-ramayanas-the-diversity-of-a-narrative-tradition-in-south-asia.html
• Relevance of Ramayana in Contemporary Times, IBA. https://api.iba.ac.in/uploads/IBA_Journal_July_Dec_2016_b482414511.pdf

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

We should also mention the honorific title, probaly as: often respectfully referred to as Sri Rama. And also allude to Rama having other names. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I think adding Ram in the lead sets an unnecessary precedent of adding a popular regional language variant of a deity's name alongside the original Sanskrit. India has many regional languages and not all of them can or need be included in the lead, even if widely cited in sources. Should the variants of the Hindi Shiv and Balram be respectively added to the Shiva and Balarama articles, or the numerous other deities whose names are also schwa-deleted or have a variant in other languages? I don't think so. I think the case of Odysseus is different as Ulysses is the character's name in a different mythology altogether, which does not apply here.

If regional variations or honorifics are significant enough to justify an inclusion, I suggest they go in the infobox under the other names column. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 06:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs, which has some relevant points to ponder, but I would humbly disagree on the main point that popular variant should not be included in the lead. Per WP:Lead and WP:Firstsentence, the lead should introduce the subject in a widely accepted manner to the non-specialist Wiki readers.

Also, you Ulysses is the popular Latin name for Odysseus, not in different mythologies. Odysseus is the original Greek name for the legendary king of Ithaca and hero of Homer's Odyssey, while Ulysses is his Latin name used by the ancient Romans for the same person.

https://theulyssesuniverse.com/blog/ulysses-vs-odysseus-same-hero-two-names

Thanks, but we already have a good precedent on Wikipedia to include most popular names in the lead per WP:Lead and WP:Firstsentence, which we should follow in this article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

For examples, similar to many variants of Sanskrit, Rama, in regional languages, Odysseus has many regional forms in, in languages that traditionally use their own transliteration or inherited form of the Greek name Ὀδυσσεύς (Odysseús). Italian- Latin Ulysses, Bulgarian- Одисей (Odisei), Croatian -Odisej, Slovenian-Odisej, Hungarian - Odüsszeusz, Romanian - Ulise, Spanish Ulises

But only the most popular, among the regional languages, Latin Ulysses is included in the lead. Similarly, we should include the Hindi Rama, which is considered the most popular variant by several cited sources. Also, a note has been attached to Ram, to clarify that there are other regional variants to address your concern to some measure. Mainly, this is in in line with WP:Lead and WP:Firstsentence, as Wiki articles for non-specialist readers, and not for scholars debating etymology details. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with User:Chronikhiles, this opens up a can of worms down the same line of thought that lead to WP:INDICSCRIPT (yes, I know it says it does not apply to Hinduism). Ram is simply one informal transliteration of NIA Rāma. It is unnecessary and redundant to include this in the lead (maybe it is better in a note).Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions and points.

Per, WP:LEAD, the Wikipedia's lead policy expressly permits significant alternative names, and that reliable sources demonstrate that Ram is independently and prominently used in English-language scholarship and religious contexts. WP:Lead says that the first occurrence of the title and “significant alternative names” are normally bolded, and explicitly gives the example: “Mumbai, also known as Bombay...”

Also, per WP:Firstsentence, the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, in plain English. It also says the lead should be accessible to as broad an audience as possible. This is relevant because “Ram” is the overwhelmingly familiar form in much contemporary English-language discussion originating in Hindi-speaking India, while “Rama” is the conventional scholarly/English encyclopedia form. Thus, including both can actually improve accessibility:

While there is a WP:REDUNDANCY provision in the lead guideline, but it is narrower than the proposed objection suggests. WP:REDUNDANCY should not automatically be interpreted as: “Never give two forms of the same name.”

It means unnecessary repetition should be avoided. There is strong evidence that “Ram” is not merely a theoretical transliteration.

For example, Cambridge scholarship uses “Ram” extensively

Philip Lutgendorf's Cambridge University Press article The View from the Ghats: Traditional Exegesis of a Hindu Epic describes the Hindi Ramcharitmanas as the story of: Prince Rām and his wife Sītā

Catherine B. Asher and Cynthia Talbot's India Before Europe, published by Cambridge University Press, has a glossary entry explicitly written: “Ram an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu who was an exemplary king”

while separately defining the Ramayana as focusing on the life of the god-king Rama

The objection: “Ram is simply one informal transliteration of NIA Rāma, so it is unnecessary and redundant.”

implicitly treats Rāma → Ram as merely an orthographic choice, but the evidence shows something more complicated.

Rāma is the scholarly IAST transliteration of Sanskrit राम.

Ram is an established form used in Hindi and other modern Indian-language contexts, and it has subsequently entered English-language usage—especially in expressions and other Wikipedia articles such as:

Ram Mandir, Ram Janmabhoomi, etc

Therefore, Rama, also known as Ram, is supported by both WP:Lead and WP:Firstsentence. Removing Ram would most likely violate Wiki Lead policies and also be a huge disservice to non-specialist Wikipedia readers familiar primarily with Ram, through reliable English literature, such as Cambridge Press, among others.

Thanks for your cooperation and civil discussion. RogerYg (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

My point stands that if we include the Hindi rendering of Ram in the lead, speakers of other Indian regional languages and perhaps also foreign ones, especially ones with a regional form of the Ramayana, will ask for equal representation. Won't it be a disservice to these readers if it is not? In this case, the first sentence in the lead will look like:

"Rama (/ˈrɑːmə/; Sanskrit: राम, IAST: Rāma, Sanskrit: [ˈraːmɐ] ^ⓘ), also known as Ram, Ramar, Raman, Ramudu, Phra Ram, and Ream, is a major deity in Hinduism, who is worshipped as one of the prominent avatars of Vishnu."

This clutter will violate WP:LEADCLUTTER and WP:FIRSTSENTENCE.

I'm not asking that Ram be removed. I noticed there's a Etymology and nomenclature section where renderings of Rama in other languages are included, and Ram could be included here. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 10:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern on many regional language variants, and agree that adding all the regional variants will lead to clutter and violate WP:LEADCLUTTER and WP:FIRSTSENTENCE.

But this point has been discussed earlier, and it has been addressed by good Wiki precedents to include only the most popular variants in the Wikipedia lead, such as in Odysseus, where only the most popular Latin variant Ulysses is in the lead.

Similar to many variants of Sanskrit, Rama, in regional languages, Odysseus has many regional forms in, in languages inherited from of the Greek name Ὀδυσσεύς (Odysseús). Italian- Latin Ulysses, Bulgarian- Одисей (Odisei), Croatian -Odisej, Slovenian-Odisej, Hungarian - Odüsszeusz, Romanian - Ulise

But only the most popular, among the regional languages, Latin Ulysses is included in the lead. Similarly, we should include the Hindi Rama, which is considered the most popular variant by multiple reliable sources, such Cambridge Press. Also, we have attached a note to Ram, to clarify that there are other regional variants to address these concern. This is in in line with WP:Lead and WP:Firstsentence, as Wiki articles for non-specialist readers, and not for scholars debating regional etymology details. Thanks for raising these concerns, but we have good Wiki precedent to follow that addresses these concerns. RogerYg (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems MOS:BOLDALTNAMES allows "significant alternative names" in the lead, and MOS:LEADCLUTTER suggests avoiding "long parenthetical..". I think question is - Is Ram (or any other alternative names) significant alternative name used in reliable English language sources (not just another language equivalent of Rama)? Asteramellus (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for raising a good point and I agree that the question should be whether Ram (or any other alternative names) significant alternative name used in reliable English language sources (not just another language equivalent of Rama)?

I have tried to argue exactly that and found evidence that Ram is a significant alternative name in reliable English sources, such as reputable Cambridge University Press books and articles using “Ram” extensively. Here are some examples again below:

Philip Lutgendorf's Cambridge University Press article The View from the Ghats: Traditional Exegesis of a Hindu Epic describes the Hindi Ramcharitmanas as the story of: Prince Ram and his wife Sītā

Catherine B. Asher and Cynthia Talbot's India Before Europe, published by Cambridge University Press, has a glossary entry explicitly written: Ram an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu who was an exemplary king”

Also, we can see that Ram as an established form used in Hindi has subsequently entered English-language usage—especially in expressions and other Wikipedia articles such as:

Ram Mandir, Ram Janmabhoomi, etc

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)