Talk:Babri Masjid/Archive 1

message: Whoever he is - He is the darling of Hindutva Brigade and their revisionist agenda.So his views should be taken with a pinch...oh sorry !!!a handful of salt.
One does not know of him much.May be he is a paid mercenary for Hindutva cause.
lol...paid mercenary..yeah right...should I remind you that the Islamic charities pay for terrorists...a very peaceful and noble cause(I'm being sarcastic)....there are many nationalists who stick to a cause by heart and pride, not money.
I won't take his views into a neutral article without talking of his Hindutva allegiance.Ya- One thing we should make a difference between the Hinduism practiced by millions of moderate Indians and the Hindutva which is a Supremacist movement not unlike the British National Party
: I can say the same thing about Marxist Leninist Romila Thapar, that she is paid by western leftists academics to denigrate Hindus as part of a communist agenda. By all means, critically analyze Elst's work, bearing in mind that he is a self-professed Christian, not a Hindu at all. Neither is Daniel Pipes, who is devoutly Jewish, and has supported the Ramjanmabhoomi cause. You have no financial records that Hindutva advocates pay him any money, whereas there is proof that Islamic orgs in India get money to & from terrorist orgs like Hezbollah and Lashkar-e-Toiba and CAIR. The fact is that muslim organizations have touted more hate speech against Hindus on the internet than Hindus have against muslims. Muslims also tout hate-speech against Jews (anti-semitism) and Zionism (anti-Zionism, basically a polite form of anti-semitism) on mainstream newspapers such as al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera. Read the report on anti-semitism in the muslim world by the Anti-Defamation League (www.adl.org).(Netaji 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Koenraad Elst

message: I have not committed vandalism. I now provide reasons for my edits below:
No, I put the muslim POV below the hindu one. This is so because the muslim pov starts out by criticizing the hindu POV, thus making it logically inconsistent for the muslim one to come first. Plus, the muslim POV part was strife with hate-speech against hindus and unsubstantiated, as well as unreferences stuff, which I have removed. The bit I have added is well-references from an article written by Koenraad Elst, who is neither Indian nor Hindu, but is a Belgian scholar of Indian studies.
For instance:
:"They say that it prove that the Hindu militants believe in "bloodshed and manslaughter" as a means to achieve their goals"
:is unsubstantiated. Hindutva charter clearly states "Harm no creature, but if they attack you, fight back"
:"since the killing of Sikhs after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi"
:Is irrelevant, since the Sikh riots were perpetrated by Congress sympathizers, and has nothing to do with  the VHP.
:"gangs of karsevaks"
:Is biased, kar-sevaks don't form gangs. How'd you like it if someone said "gangs of Hamas members"? :"shouting 'Jai Shri Ram'"
:Is irrelevant. So they were shouting stuff. Not unlike "Allahu-Akbar", is it?
:These communities speak of how the Muslims of the town supplied the wood used to build the temples of the   Hindus and grew flowers to string around the necks of the gods and goddesses (Dutas and Devis)."
:Yeah, right. And I'm a 23000-year old Buddhist Vampire. Show proof. 
:"Secondly, this idea of relocating could be considered only in the case of grave necessity and not the whims and fancies of any community that has hegemonous mentality and claims from three to thirty thousands more mosques as being built on destroyed Hindu temples."
:Is obvious POV
:"fantasize on other Muslim heritage coming up with a story on birth of their dieties, places of their marriage or their death and claim those Muslim monuments as their own."
:Bad grammar. I prefer grammatically correct hate-speech, don't you? There is absolutely no proof of this allegation specifically. Maybe in a general sense, but the specificity is wrong, POV, biased, and hate-speech against Hindus. Notice that there is no hate-speech against muslims in my edits.
:Please view these woth an open neutral mind. After all, even a devout muslim like Abu Sina could criticize aspects of his religion and not get beheaded, right? (Netaji 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A short summary of my recent edits

message: I've heard this claim about that the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) to preach to India, and they found traces of his hair from his head. This can be from an authentic source (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud etc.. ) or it can be a forgery hadith. I'm not too sure about this, can someone research this up? Is there any authentic source? 
*** Hi,The details of prophet's daily life are well recorded in history and there is no mention whatsoever of him visiting India at all.
***Thanks the gods for that. We never needed pedophiles anyway (Netaji 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muslims say the same thing about Israel and they're all lies. Gujarat is the Hindu Israel. It is the one place where Hindus are safe at last, and we did it just like the Israelis crushed the al-Aqsa intifida against the Paagal-stinian terrorists. Think we can be stopped? Think again, brother. We will forever remain a democracy, but we will also be a Hindu Rashtra, without the pseudosecularist vote-bank politics of the liberal left, or their pandering to terrorists who attack us with boulders and bombs, and Dalit Supremacists who steal our jobs using quotas and spread hate against their own people.(Pusyamitra Sunga 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Shivaji was not a Brahmin. He read all four Vedas. Rabindranath Tagore was not a Brahmin, yet he knew excellent Sanskrit. How does THAT gel with your lies, Shri "Advani" Jee? 'Secular ethos'. Yeah, right. LOL! What a joke! No Uniform Civil Code, special prefernce to Dalits and muslims. What secular ethos? Secuarism in India is a fraud.(Pusyamitra Sunga 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? I'll bloody tell you why. The same reason why muslims created hundreds of anti-semitic and anti-Hindu websites on the internet. Hatred, pure and simple. Specific to the dalit supremacists and their "Chamaar Nation" horsecrap, we're talking about Self-Hatred, such as a self loathing Hindu like yourself, bhai. A login of LK Advani and still a self-hating Hindu. What a tragedy you are. YOu want to hate us? go ahead, hate us. Theoughout the centuries we have been hated by muslims. Not a day has gone by when they didn;t digest their dinner without housting a few drinks and attacking Hindus on the streets, it gave meaning to so many of them...
Enjoy yourself. At this point we are sufficiently powerful and well-connected to not care if fringe element nutjobs hate us.
 Here are some links for you. Now our enemies may quiver in fear in the face of our newfound ally:
http://peace.heebz.com/india.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10445
http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.16/living1.html
http://www.indojudaic.com/index.htm
http://www.hinduunity.org/jewsofindia.html
http://www.indojudaic.com/Lecture_Topics/lecturehindujewish.html
http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/Sharon_2003/sharon_000.htm
http://www.saag.org/papers2/paper131.html
I'll say one thing. Your screed against your own people, this self-hatred that you ahow, is robably related more to your ignorance of Hinduism than anything else. Your misguided perception of muslims being some sort of 'opressed underclass' gels with the dialectic materialism of Karl Marx. Understand this, my friend. Secularism IS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR DEMOCRACY! USA and Israel have proved that. The world is shifting towards faith-based governments like neo-conservatives and Likud/Kadima . If Hindus don't do that, we will be wiped out by muslims in a massive genocide (think they'll spare you? Think again). Being a low caste hindu is way better then being a Dhimmi or Kaffir. Don;t believe me? Ask the Hindus presently being hunted to extinction in Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or a kashmiri pandit. Or the Ba'haii Jews assaulted and murdered on the streets of Tehran, or Christians in Saudi Arabia, or anyone who is not a muslim in an Islamic Country.
(Pusyamitra Sunga 11:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhe Wassalam) and Babri Mosque

message: # As far as I know, the clear identification of the structure beneath the Babri ruins has not been confirmed as a Hindu temple, and certainly not as a Rama Janmabhoomi temple. While I believe, and you might believe, that this structure was in fact a Rama Janmabhoomi temple destroyed by Babar, while definititive evidence is lacking it remains an allegation, and we must state it as such. Of course, you might know more than I about the matter - could you provide sources demonstrating that the structure is, in fact, a Rama janmabhoomi temple?
# Regarding the appearance of idols, they did not "mysteriously appear", they were placed there by activists. I don't know why we should avoid saying this. Also, it certainly wasn't disused - there were Muslim prayer services being conducted there at the time, and quibbling by Koenraad Elst et al. about what qualifies it as a fully-functional mosque does not mitigate this fact.
# I'd like to equivocate more on the actual destruction... I don't think there's definitive proof that it was pre-planned. However, the version presented, where you ascribe motives to the crowd (i.e., "anger at ... pandering to the Muslim vote bank") are wholly indefensible.
# In general your presentation is highly partisan. If you wish to make the article -less- partisan, please do so - your changes are egregiously pro-Sangh and not appropriate. E.g., the last statement "These findings were promptly rejected by the Communists and other political parties which depend on the Muslim vote bank." is certainly clearly partisan.
Please let me know what you think of these points... I hope we can work together to make this a better article. Graft 18:58, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the version that 64.* and 128.* keep reverting to, here are my issues with it

message: I forgot to add one point. Notice the way you describe Rama as a mythical figure. That was an assertion. Would you make the same assertion regarding Jesus, Mohammed flying on a horse etc? I don't see you making such corrections there in an assertive tone. Clearly that shows your prejudices. 
Observing Hindus around the world, I see that they do not strap themselves with explosives and blast themselves in public places, do not hijack planes and slam them into buildings and do not wage religious wars. I can only conclude that the allegations against Hindus being the most evil people on earth is fiction.
:Okay, I thank you for engaging me, and having done so I'm far more willing to tolerate your alterations. Some points:
:I have two main sources of information on Ayodhya: one is the books and literature of the Sangh and Hindutva crowd, and the other is the Internet and Indian newspapers. Both of these have their biases, and not residing in India I must admit I have a hard time distilling out the truth. So please forgive me if I attribute something that you feel is clearly untrue, because it's probably simply a mistake or ignorance on my part.
:As to actual points: "mysteriously appeared" I dislike because it plays into the stories that this was a God-ordained event or some sort of miracle. I've read that there was a police report confirming the identity of the man who placed the idols, and Anand Patwardhan in one of his (admittedly biased) documentaries interviews a man who claims to be the placer (i forget if he had the same name)... at any rate, I'd at least like to include "probably placed by Hindu activists" or, as you say, "allegedly placed".
:I found an article on the latest excavations in Organiser, which I find fairly compelling, but I'd be interested in reading objections to it just to know what they were.
:Regarding use of the mosque, I've read arguments saying that it was disused, but I think these arguments mostly hinge on what "disused" means. I've only really read one side of this argument, but on the other side, there's testimony that namaaz was conducted until 1949 and an imam responsible for the site until the placing of the statue. Not sure about how reliable either is.
:Regarding the Communist/pandering - I really don't know whether Muslims vote on the word of mullahs or if that's just a myth, not really having any way to verify that, but in any event I think the juxtaposition is there just to discredit the communists, et al, which I think should be avoided.
:Regarding Advani - I'd like to be careful about describing him. He's a politician and a slippery one, and he certainly says a lot of things in public, but there are just as many reports of things he did and said not-so-publicly that belie his noble intentions, and I can certainly believe it. I don't think we should be drawing him as some guy who was just trying to do the right thing by everyone... his motives were most definitely cynical.
:As to non-article-related stuff... I don't agree that Ayodhya is a legal issue - first of all, who are the parties? And secondly, it's about a historical site, and a major, significant one (obviously) - the government has to take a hand.
:Also, I describe Rama as a mythical figure because he's a mythical figure, like Oddysseus or Moses. His importance is more in his symbolic meaning and actions than in his historical context, which is dubious at best.
:Anyway, thanks again for responding to my points. Graft 06:58, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgot to add in my previous comment 

message: I agree about the mythical figure part. My theory about all of these figures is that there must have been someone somewhere with some small following and the followers built up fiction about these figures. My point is the unequal treatment of various religions - Christianity and Judaism is usually treated as history while assertions about the "mythical" nature of other religions is made. I have heard the term "Hindu mythology" but never "Christian mythology." 
BTW, Organiser is a mouthpiece of RSS and Anand Patwardhan is a known Communist sympathiser. However, the piece about the evidence at Ayodhya must have been a good one because the facts are on their side.
Unfortunately, India's media as well as academics were controlled by the Communists until the 1990s when the stranglehold on the academia was broken. That is why everything is very contentious in India - Aryan Invasion Theory was  made up by Max Mueller, a missionary who fitted it into the claim that Biblical creation occured around 3987 BCE, treatment of all events as class struggles (Hindu vs Muslim fits into this), hiding of Muslim atrocities - travel across North India and not a single temple which is undamaged is older than 150 years though the civilization is 1000s of years old while South India which escaped Islamic rule has very old temples in all their splendour, branding Hindus as evil - evidence shows the contrary, indians are peaceful people who welcomed people of other religions over the ages while they themselves never fought back when they were evicted by Idi Amin, by the dictators in Burma and even puny Fiji.
To let you know where I'm coming from, I am an agnost and a libertarian. I've created a new id - LibertarianAnarchist for convenience. I am still learning the format to make an entry. So pardon me if you find anything incomplete. I'll post the references you suggested.
: That is a whole heap of hippy gibberish.  Indians most certainly did stike back, and first at times.  I'm not ecven going to get into this.  You appear to have been tainted by BJP VHP propaganda.
:: And you by muslim mullahs and terrorists like bin-Laden, as well as white Christian supremacists like David Duke and Pat Robertson. RSS is here to stay. Get used to it, or go live in Iran and see what they do to you there.(Pusyamitra Sunga 06:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree about mythical figure but... 

message: OneGuy, are you being deliberately obtuse? The previous paragraph contains text that clearly states that the Archaeological Survey of India found evidence of a temple structure. It's inappropriate for you to insert a paragraph that says "no evidence has been found", in direct contradiction of the previous paragraph. Edit it so it is in line with the above text, fine, but the way it's written is absurd. Graft 19:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to you altering that sentence about "only Muslims"; I have no attachment to it, it's obviously inaccurate. But do so in a manner that isn't wholly at odds with the flow of the article. Having flatly contradictory sentences in subsequent paragraphs is just silly. Graft 07:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple evidence 

message: The edits done on 15 and 16 January deleted prior information and added POV material. We are all trying to be NPOV on wikipedia, so let's have a fair representation of both sides. This demands some effort and good will from both sides. 
Furthermore, there are some severe inaccuracies. For example, there is the following instance: "Richard M Eaton, an American historian of medieval India, in his Essays on Islam and Indian History documents desecration of all Hindu temples between 1192 and 1760. The total adds up to 80."
This is ridiculous. First of all, Eaton in his controversial book does not claim that this list is exhaustive. And, if we look at the list of eighty cases, there is for example this instance: “1094: Benares, Ghurid army”. This doesn't mean the Ghurid Army destroyed just one temple, because if we take the time to look at the sources he used, we read the Ghurid royal army “destroyed nearly one thousand temples, and raised mosques on their foundations”. So this "eigthty" neeeds some zeros added. 
Here are some links, for reference:
*The Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir
*Ayodhya
*The Ayodhya Debate
*article on Ayodhya
*Ayodhya and the Research on the Temple of Lord Rama
*FACTS ABOUT THE AYODHYA DISPUTE
--Kdlb 21:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:81.1.123.238]] and [[User:Lalitshastri]] 

message: I made some expansions to the article and some reorganisations. I moved all matter relevant to the archaeology of the temple to the Ram Janmabhoomi article, because it discusses the existence or non-existence of the temple. Most of the history of the mosque after 1528 (or after 1194) is now in the Babri Mosque article. The Ayodhya article itself should of course only discuss the city, not the debate. I also expanded the archaeology and literature and other sections. In fact, a lot of important information was missing in the article and may still be missing. Hopefully other editors (like User:AladdinSE who has been one of the best editors to this article, as far as I can see) take a look at it and write something from their perspective. --Kyuss 14:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of the article 

message: In reply to Lalit Shastri's vandalism and to his love-letter from above:
*Vandalizing pages and making large-scale deletions to information you don't like is NOT the way wikipedia works. This kind of behaviour will get you NOWHERE on wikipedia.
*It is you that were and are trying to push a highly POV version of your version of the article and are deleting every information you don't like. I (unlike you) didnt' delete any information in the article, although a lot of your contributions was and is unsourced and pov if not factually false. (I moved however some information to the temple article.) I had nothing at all to do with your deleted pictures (I think they were deleted by admins because they were lacking copyrights). 
*If however, you find a way to improve the article please do so in a civilized manner. And if you think that there is text that is pov, not wikified, lacking sources or disputable, then please improve it in a civilized manner. 
*Claiming that I'm a "rabid member of the RSS" is as pointless and totally irrelevant to the article as me claiming that you were a member of the GNAA. Just for your information, I'm NOT a member of ANY political organisation.
*Some of Lalit Shastri's contributions to wikipedia can be found here. They may reveal more of his apparent bias (and are in fact quite entertaining). (I mean of course his Ayodhya and RSS related rants.)
*This article is still a work in progress. A lot of information may still be missing in the article. 
--Kyuss 08:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism by [[User:81.1.126.243]] ([[User:Lalitshastri]]) 

message: Firstly, can I ask who got rid of pictures of Uma Bharti and Advani standing in front of the mosque, as it was being destroyed and those of  Kar Savaks wielding cutlasses.
Secondly I wrote the upper third of the article on the architecture, thats still there, I am not defending my own work, there is no need to. But of other contributers which is not there. did you delete these?????
I have reverted the article to its original and no doubt you Kyuss will immediately go for the revert button. Meanwhile user Kyuss that was not a "love letter" why should I love you, don't be silly. That was more of a whipping a chastisement.
Maybe you are one those who LOVES  being caned, some sort of repressed perverted gratification to go with your rabid fanaticism. I have contributed a section on homophobia and the SA of the Third Reich, those other brown shirts, only this time its Khaki short pants  from Nagpaur.
Keep editing articles that’s what wiki is for. You of the Bajrang monkey Brigade are entitled to express an opinion in this manner expose yourself, this time flashing another very small part of your anatomy your brains. After all Wiki is a democracy. 
Lalit Shastri
:Exactly, Wiki is a democracy, so please adhere to democratic principles. Can I ask you to read the pages on NPOV and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? And I already wrote that I didn't delete information or pictures, though I moved some text to the temple article. As for the rest, read my above reply. Your contributions to the homophobia of the SA is a very sympathetic contribution of yours. It is in fact sad that homophobics from the Christian Right and others are constantly alleging that the Nazis were gays, while in fact they were very anti-gay. I only wish you would show the same tolerance and open-minded spirit to the critical information in this article. The article may still be in need of improvement, but deleting all critical information from it will not make it any better. Peace, --Kyuss 11:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article has become so infested with ham fisted ignoramus from the RSS like user Kyuss Editing it is like descending into a snake pit

message: *I had read once, during the 1992-1993 period, that the Muslims had conceded in 1857 the site to the Hindus in exchange for their support during the uprising against the English government, and that after the re-establishment of English rule, the English government negated that agreement. Is there any truth or reference for this agreement? 
*Why is there no mention of the archaeological excavations at the site by the Archaeological Survey of India on the orders of the Indian Supreme Court, and the findings? 
WikiSceptic 04:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two References Missing

message: The article says that nearly a million karsevaks destroyed the mosque - i'm really not sure about this number.  I've heard numbers like '200000' before, but I know that was in dispute as well.  Does anyone know of any accurate estimates? Willardo 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question. I looked up various sources and I got various answers. Jul/Aug 2004 edition of Archaeology says 75,000 whereas Spring 2000 of Growth & Change (an academic journal) uses the 200,000 figure you mentioned.Pepsidrinka 05:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This article  (only the first four paragraphs are available for free and the number of participants is not available unless you pay) states the figure at 150,000. Pepsidrinka 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: I don't agree with putting this discussion / article in with the wikiproject on Hinduism.  We have to remember that there is a significant and crucial difference between Hinduism as a religion, and Hindu nationalism, the significant force behind the Babri destruction.  Putting them together is a dangerous political argument.  Willardo 10:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The Babri Mosque is an important event in the history of Hinduism.  It was said to be the birth place of Lord Rama.  The temple that commemorated his birth was torn down by islamic invaders and a mosque was built in its place.  The Mosque was torn down by Hindus.  Hindu nationalism orginates from Hinduism. --Dangerous-Boy 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On your central point - that Hindu nationalism originates from Hinduism - I strongly disagree.  We can say that (for example) glass originates from sand.  Yet to ignore the very dramatic changes - and other ingredients - that are necessary to leap between sand and glass is to ignore the essence of the difference.  Hinduism is not Hindu nationalism, and vice versa.  If they were the same thing, why did the destruction occur when it did? Willardo 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You stated it yourself.  Glass needs sands.  Saying that Hindu Nationalism is not apart of Hinduism is incorrect.  The idealogy originates from Hinduism.  It were <B>Hindus</B> that torn down that mosque.  It is the Hindus that make up Hindu Nationalism.  It like saying Muslims do not make up or did not create the Taliban or Al Aqaeda.  Like it or not, that's apart of Islamic history.  The tearing of this mosque is apart of Hindu history.  --Dangerous-Boy 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed the point of my analogy.  I am not doubting that Hindu nationalism <B>draws on</B> Hinduism.  But saying that it is 'the Hindus' (as if it is all Hindus) that make up Hindu nationalism is simply not correct.  To follow out the analogy, does sand automatically turn to glass?  You will never get glass from sand simply by waiting.  So what <B>causes</B> sand to turn in to glass?  What is the agent that forces change?  Please recognise that such difference and such causality is very important when trying to understand a phenomenon. Willardo 00:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But glass still needs the sand to exist.  Otherwise, it can't form.  --Dangerous-Boy 09:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject: Hinduism 

message: Let me first congratulate all those who contributed to this article. Its quite an accomplishment in itself. The part about the destruction of the mosque is not an easy topic to write about and it is even more difficult to keep it a Neutral Point Of View as this was anything but a neutral event. I hope that this article will be nominated to become a feature article so that more people will read it and understand how complex relations between different communities in India are.
hydkat 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Congrats to all who have contributed to this article 

message: Hi.  Please note that images licensed "to Wikipedia only", "for non-commercial use", or "for educational use" are candidates for speedy deletion (I3).  Wikipedia is an attempt to create a free, reusable encyclopedia, including commercial re-use, and such licenses are incompatible with this goal.  Any such images may be deleted at any time, and I would like to very much encourage the editors here to remove such images from this article and find freely-licensed replacements.  Thanks for understanding.  Jkelly 23:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Should it be urdu instead of arabic in the intro.--Dangerous-Boy 07:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urdu instead of arabic? 

message: In Urdu the name of the Masjid is بابري and the name of Emperor Babur is بابر
Therefore we can derive that Babri Masjid = Babur's Masjid or Masjid (Mosque) of Babur in english. Mustaqbal 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mosque of Babur 

message: Many of the claims regarding the scope of the violence are unsubstantiated. Point of fact, articles by Francis Gautier have pointed out that physical violence against people during the repatriation were minimal. Until I clean it up, the TotallyDisputed Tag needs to be there.I'll need to research a bit in order to present the muslim point of view neutrally, as well as get the facts about the actual extent of the violence allegedlyperpetrated by Hindu nationalists, together with death toll figures.(Netaji 13:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some edits. I think it's pretty NPOV, but have put a POV-Check tag on it just in case. By the way, the bit about the architecture of the mosque is very good. I like the pics too. Amazing how a rose can grow out of mud,eh? Pity it had to go... (Netaji 14:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV mauled to peices 

message: I find that a particular editor has edited the page massively with edit summaries like tags/ typos and so on to camouflage the addition/deletion made by him. This is rally sad and  a point of introspection: are we building the project or trying to make fun of it! It was really interesting to see a bot revert his edit when he changed thirteen to 31. Bots are intelligent than wikipedians!!! --Bhadani 15:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I just looked at page history and no significant edits have occurred beyond those done before the article was protected. Care to elaborate, since you seem to be 'smarter' than the bot and 'wikipedians' (a contradiction, since you are a wikipedian yourself).(Pusyamitra Sunga 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking of some earlier edits - before the page was protected. --Bhadani 16:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misunderstood. Nonetheless, the article has reached some level of NPOV, though I suspect muslims would angrily disagree. What is troubling is the high visibility of the article on the web (google search provides this article as the first hit), so we must be extra careful so as to remain NPOV and not let nutjob fundamentalists (whether muslim or hindutva) mess it up further once the article gets unprotected.(Pusyamitra Sunga 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I envision wikipedia to emerge as a source of reference instead the wikipedians searching for the references. For this, each one of us should edit with utmost integrity. Regrds. --Bhadani 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, that's what it's supposed to be. In practice, people are lazy, and even though they may get the references later, the text of the article already forms a preconceived bias in their minds. The visibility of a wikipedia article and it's easy accessibility makes it prime grounds for mad mullahs to come and tout their crap. This must be policed by people of good will.(Netaji 14:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bots getting better!

message: P. V. Narasimha Rao, the 9th Prime Minister of India, has termed Babari Masjid as “controversial structure” in his book Ayodhya 6 December 1992. The natural presumption is that a section of the government, including him, believed that it was not a Mosque in the conventional sense as the structure perhaps did not conform to the Islamic principles to be designated as a Mosque. However, my knowledge in such matter is rather poor. I would like to learn more. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PV Narasimharao does not seem to have qualification as an Islamic Scholar or an architectural specialist.You seem to be trying to raise the point often raised in Hindutva literature, in a subtle way.The Indian government had begun using this term for reasons perhaps unknown to itself for there has never been any statement from them in this regard.You would have noticed a certain acceptability to calling it Babri mosque after it was felled.Mosques using similar pattern were built in Panipat during Babur's time and there are other mosques in India and other parts of the world that do not have the architectural features non Muslims may associate with a mosque.A mosque cam be as simple as a shed - the only thing important is a place to stand.By the way Rao promised to rebuild the mosque on the same spot in the televised address to the nation that helped in quelling the rioting in that period.
Rushdie 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for explaining the position. But, in the course of this you violated a cardinal policy of wikipedia: WP:AGF by presuming that "You seem to be trying to raise the point often raised in Hindutva literature, in a subtle way." But, as you are very new here with very few edits to still fewer pages, so I give you the benefit of doubt in view of WP:BITE. I trust that you shall continue to brighten wikipedia with your insight and thoughtful comments. BTW, your presumption that non-Muslims may not be aware of so many nuisances of Islam are right, but not an absolute truth - many non-Muslims may be aware of the fact that a simple shed would also serve as a Mosque. I would also like to point out that perhaps, your user name, unless it is your personal name, may not conform to the wiki-guidelines as it is a part of a famous name, though I am not sure. Please continue to enrich wikipedia with regular edits. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An information

message: I thought this article was fine back then?  It was pretty well balanced.  What happened?--D-Boy 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article is fine now. I think all points of view have been equally well-represented.Netaji 06:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are right. But, representing all point of views may not make the page encyclopedia. An encyclopedia means the truth and only truth. Perhaps all along we have been wrongly interpreting wikipedia's policy of NPOV. It means the page should be neutral and represent the truth. --Bhadani 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the truth itself is disputed here. Truth according to whom? Muslims, Hindus, terrorists, Hindutva people, Leftist anti-Hindus, Right-Wing people? Whom? The issue is muddied, and nothing is 100% conclusive. When objective truth itself is absent all presented points of view must be there. Until incontrovertible proof is presented to support any point of view (or none) all points of view must be represented as such, which it has been. The 2 sections clearly say "History according to Hindus" & "History according to Muslims". Objective facts (about the Mosque's architecture, location, demolition etc) have been untainted. So the article is fine as is. No bias is there. Bear in mind also that wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia.Netaji 10:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine. --Bhadani 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv back to jan 9? 

message: "The Muslim side has been unable to disprove the fact that a Hindu temple existed in the area."
There is nothing that even remotely indicates that in the source. BhaiSaab talk 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it does.Netaji 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a quote. BhaiSaab talk 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentions several arguments for and against the Mandir, indicating a lack of consensus. The tome of the article is partisan in favor of muslims. Hence, the lack of consensus is failure on the part of the partisan. It's possible that this sentence might be construed as original research. Ask Blnguyen what he thinks. If he says original research then by all means remove it.Netaji 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you can't provide a quote backing that sentence...BhaiSaab talk 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you so much, help your Muslim brethren out and find proof there wasn't a temple. Your friend TerryJHo is finding it excruciatingly difficult. He might even be cracking under the pressure.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I found an article on JSTOR on the archaelogical findings in the area that has both Hindu and Muslim arguments; I will be using it to improve this article soon. BhaiSaab talk 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  And I'll be watching as always.Netaji 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Every source still states there was a temple under the rubble. The Muslims have not (and will not) been able to find proof the Mosque was built on anything other than a Hindu temple.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: All this and still no quote. Amazing. BhaiSaab talk 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do I need a quote? Why don't you find proof for the Muslim side? Of course, the ASI found remains of a temple underneath, so I guess we can say "sayonara" to that sentence now anyways. Its unneeded when definite proof has been found.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disproven Theories 

message: I have posted a cleanup tag on the History section because the vocabulary and organization of the section is really lacking.  Also, the section doesn't seem wikified enough.  Mar de Sin Speak up! 12:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Wow... there is a Hindu Mulsim war everywhere !! Anyhow... maybe when u guys are done fighting with each other you should pay attention to the 'fact' that this article is not neutral. It bends heavily towards the Hindu point of view (i think it has been written by one). Its pretty nice till the architecture part but then the whole 'history according to the hindu point of view' stinks of propaganda. This matter can be debated forever... so if we have such a strong representation of the history according to the hindus we should also have a equally strong case put forward from the muslim perspective (i'm sure there is one). Now you can probably start disecting me and my character here but i'm just a regular wikipedia fan who hates to see biased articles !
So maybe this article can be moderated by a hindu and a muslim together.. just to keep the balance.
Ainz
61.246.25.36 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Neutral... 

message: Terrorism needs to be backed up by numerous mainstream sources. The demolition of a building in which nobody was killed is hardly terrorism.Bakaman 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hostage taking is terrorism. Having said that, if the destruction of Nalanda and Mahabodhi Temple which also encompassed mass slaughter is not terrorism, then this doesn't seem to either. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Destruction of mosques wont seems to be terrorism these days. if it was a destruction of any minor threat and if it was a muslim behind it, then it is called terrorism. Please dont try to change the meaning of the word "terrorism" its just not an attribute given to muslims alone.
Pens withdrawn 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See the definition of terrorism.And btw,Babri was built on a Hindu temple, according to the ASI report. So Babar is the real terrorist by your definition.Bakaman 05:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I will just note that when you say "a symbol of harmony for centuries among Muslims and Hindus" you are sort of wrong. You see, Hindus have a deity known as Rama, who was born there and a temple on his birthplace was demolished, so bad blood existed since then, harmony isn't the word I would use. Your stereotyping of Hindutva as random communalist people that only like to call tensions is far from the truth. Hindutvavaadis, for example, sheltered Sikhs during the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, yes, Atal Behari Vajpayee was known for saving Sikhs from Hindu mobs and was commended by Hindutva parties for it.  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There seems to be consensus that this is not an example of terrorism.Bakaman 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hardly call that a consensus. 24.250.173.10 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: terrorism

message: "It was destroyed in a well planned move by groups of Hindu extremists(RSS and VHP) in a riot on December 6, 1992"
"It was destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992."  --- current version
major problem was with the word "extremists" -- lets agree with "activists" (just for compromise)
next part of the problem is inclusion of group names RSS and VHP. 
User:Nobleeagle says that- they were not the only group and deletes that part (see the history of the page). But no one denies the fact that they are also involved. And it is also know to everyone that the masjid was destroyed in a well planned move (even in the presence of tight security arranged by central govt of India)
So lets make the phrase as "It was destroyed in a well planned move by groups of Hindu activists(RSS, VHP and others) in a riot on December 6, 1992"
word 'others' is added to address User:Nobleeagle's problem and activist is retained.
Trying to hide these facts in wikipedia doesn't erase the history. It id so stupid to think like that. ----Pens withdrawn 11:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  those who disagree with it, please make your point here. --- Pens withdrawn 11:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if no one has any other opinion, I am going to make the change on tomorrow. I have already waited five days. Pens withdrawn 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us not do any original research. Please provide any notable references / citations which clearly says the act as a "well planned move". Otherwise, it is going to be a POV. The same applies to the inclusion of different groups. - KNM  Talk 05:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two or three propagandists are NOT going to determine what an article says. Tearing down a holy building is extremism AT LEAST if not terrorism (though most would argue it is indeed just that). 24.250.173.10 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  most disputed phrase : lets discuss and finalize 

message: Can we get a paragraph detailing the destruction of the mosque, and the aftermath of it's destruction.
:Agreed. We don't actually say what happened. We jump from the 1940s to the present day. Secretlondon (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction 

message: Kristin M. Romey, Flashpoint Ayodhya in Archaeological Ethics,  (Karen D. Vitelli, John Stephen Colwell-Chanthaphonh Eds.) Rowman Altamira, 2006, ISBN: 075910963X. 
Doldrums 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  noting a source 

message: The text reads ‘The contemporary Tarikh-i-Babari records that Babar's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at Chanderi’." - Why are we quoting non-existant memoirs? The only memoirs of the era are the Ta'rikh-e Rashidi and the baburnama, neither of which contain the previously quoted text. Explain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.55.146 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The what now? 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Why is there not actually any content in this article describing the destruction of the Mosque? Kind of a big thing to be missing, it just jumps from the 40s to the present day. Also the actual text of this article is utter garbage, it really shows that all the effort here went into pov-pushing instead of actual writing. I will be adding copy-edit and cleanup tags to the article as soon as I can edit it. --PatLarsen 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am somewhat inactive, but I will try and help you out. The history is contentious, and basically the reason for destruction, ergo it is a large (in your view too large) part of this article. As for sources, show me which sections are needing, and I will attempt to source them. Thanks for taking the initiative.Bakaman 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I think it is important to have a further section on this article, like relevant links, citing how many hundereds of Hindu temples have gone down in Muslim countries compared to one measly mosque in India.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.64.106 (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article is about the "measly" mosque in India, which is why it has sections about its destruction. Destruction of other teples are not really relevant to this article. Feel free to put sections (with reliable sources, of course!) about the "many hundreds of Hindu temples [which] have gone down in Muslim countries" in the article about the temples which went down (if they are notable enough to have an artcile). It may be worth noting that this "measly" temple was one of the largest in Uttar Pradesh, and about a fifth of the Indian population are Muslims (compared to what? in Muslim countries). Joshua Issac (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important further reading Comment 

message: Substituted at 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Reaction of DEMOLATION?Please,it's demolition.
Deepak (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Joshua Issac (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Mistakes 

message: ;Babur
It is generally thought that the Mosque was built by Babur after demolishing the Rama temple, because an inscription on the mosque records his name. Although we have a detailed account of the life of Babur in the form of his diary (Babur Nama), the pages of the relevant period are missing in the diary. But it is also alleged that the Mosque already existed before Babur, who may only have renovated the building.
Part of the paragraph was removed as it had no source and was not neutral. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims 

message: I watched a video (by a western source) that documented the Babri mosque demolition, and it claimed that most of the riots that broke out were targeted towards Muslims. I'm not sure if its the truth or not, but might be worth looking into. There's only one sentence here which only says 'riots were broken out' but doesn't give details of who was predominantly affected by the riots, or any other details such as main cities/states of the riots, etc. --digitwoman (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riots 

message: A few pages which could become sources:
http://www.geocities.com/indianfascism/Babri/babri_masjid.htm
http://pakistantimes.net/2005/02/04/kashmir5.htm
Joshua Issac (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The second source looks reliable. Information taken from it will be attributed to the source if it is put in the article,; e.g. "According to Pakistani Times, this and that happened, ...". While this source may not be neutral it can still be used to show a viewpoint. Please remember that Pakistan is a country with a lot of people - some may try to portray India as anti-Muslim but I really don't think all of them will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Issac (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1942725,00.htmlMughalnz (talk)
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/2009112414593176363.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8376755.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/india-babri-mosque-violence-report
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gRlNDzA652rwzZ8TExAc06KiIq_Q
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1124/p06s04-wosc.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aKUCmGe.WP5k
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSDEL486832
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200911/2751412.htm?desktop
http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/25/stories/2009112557980100.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/25/stories/2009112558130100.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some  resources 

message: In the section titled, 'Demolition of Babri Masjid', it refers to the mob that demolished the mosque as "Hindu nationalists". I think a more neutral word to use would be "Hindu extremists". Using "hindu nationalists", we're giving the impression that nationalists, who were Hindu, wanted to destroyed it.Sridharrao (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of "Hindu nationalists" 

message: After a few edits over the last couple of days I believe I have made a decent attempt at a cleanup. I believe the peacock terms have been removed and there now a balanced POV. The overall tone of the article favours neither side and presents the facts in a balanced manner. This achieves NPOV, because not every section or line in a contentious article can possibly be NPOV in and of itself. As long as the opposing viewpoints are dealt with clearly and in a fair proportion, then overall NPOV is maintained. What IS lacking here are citations. I also agree it would be good to have a few more details regarding the events on the day of destruction.  Mdw0 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I am surprised to just find a line about Demolition of Babri Masjid, an important event of post-independence, especially considering its aftermath on the very fabric of India, an historical event like this deserves more. Thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 06:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Demolition of Babri Masjid

message: I have added few referenced facts about the Babri Mosque#Demolition Adi4094 (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual Demolition

message: We had some images linking to the main article. All these images have disappeared from English version but are available elsewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.179.9 (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have images of the Babri Mosque miraculously disappeared 

message: This page is begging for semi-protection. Zealots are using this page to provoke their opponents by making a mess of what is otherwise an informative and useful article. If people cant accept there are two sides to the Ayodhya debate then the barriers WILL go up.  Mdw0 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's not right, I think we should stick to the true sequence of events, even if it is provocative to a section of editors. We are creating an encycolpedia, not a report to appease a section of editors. Main stream media (time.com) mentions Kar Sevaks being responsible for the demolition., they were not participants of political rally that turned violent but they were actually people who went to Ayodhya for the sole purpose of inaugrating the construction of the temple - the ceremony of which is called as "Shilanyas", I think - If you see how BBC describes it, and BBC is just one source there are many other which say that it wasn't a rally but they had "vowed to replace it with a Rama Temple" "Militant Hindus demolished the 16th-century Babri mosque in 1992, vowing to replace it with a Hindu temple to Rama. They say they were justified in destroying the mosque because there used to be a Hindu temple marking Rama's birthplace on that spot before. The mosque was torn down by supporters of the hardline Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Council), the Shiv Sena party and then-opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). " See http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/MakingIndiaHindu.htm [ http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Babri+demolition+shilanyas+nic+in+site%3Aparliamentofindia.nic.in&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=bZs&sa=2 Indian Parliament Discussions]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterDunhumble (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: In light of the expected verdict on the issue on the 24th of September, and as the issue is controversial, I request semi-protection.
: Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.   Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 16:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: However, after checking, I see that the article is already semi-protected...   Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection 

message: Hi, I saw that this page has been inactive for a while, so I archived it. See the archive if you want to see the discussion. If you wish to add anything, please copy the relevant bits from the archive and paste it here, then add your comment(s). Thank you. Joshua Issac (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality 

message: 
Please add information regarding verdict of Babri Mosque demolition which is coming out on 30 September 2010. Please add whole story of how it got delayed due to supreme court rulings and then how supreme court of India lifted the ban on verdict which is to be given by Allahabad High Court in 30 September 2010.
Mayank6002 (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some of this to the Ayodhya debate article. Can you provide more specific points you want to be included, and/or sources for the same? (For the record, the 30 September verdict is not regarding the demolition, but is about the title cases filed ~50 years ago) SPat talk 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Mayank6002, 29 September 2010 

message: The latest edits on the opening paragraph are not appropriate.
The anonymous editor hasn’t made any effort to address concerns, so I'm going to make
it clear as to why the edits don’t work.
Firstly, there is excessive detail that makes the opening paragraph lose the pointed style opening paragraphs need. This information needs to be in the appropriate areas further down, if at all.
Second, it adds a lot of off-topic information. This is not the Ayodhya Debate page, it is the Babri Mosque page. Therefore the opening paragraph, and most of the other paragraphs must be about the mosque itself, not what was there before the mosque.
Third, the referencing is poor. There is nothing indicating academic backup of the claims for the prevailing temple, no references for the later court orders or Muslim unrest. A request for referencing about the claimed religious demographics of Ayodhya resulted in a useless link to the Indian Census page which gives no information at all. The claim that there have been no Muslim prayers at the site since 1947 would definitely require a reference.
Fourth, the history information is hopelessly out of order. It moves from ancient times to 1992 to construction in 1527 to 1984 to independence in 1947 then 1989 then back to 1528. Is the editor deliberately trying to cause confusion?
Fifth, the edits reproduce information from other sections. The history information is better expressed, and more evenly expressed in the History section.
Also, the translation of ‘Mosque i Janmasthan’ is ‘Mosque of the Birthplace’, NOT birthplace of Lord Rama, otherwise Krishna Janmasthan would translate as Krishna Birthplace of Lord Rama
I understand the editor may be a passionate supporter of whatever is their cause,
and that they have added what they believe to be true. However, the edit does not belong in the opening paragraph and most of it is either repetition or it doesn’t belong in this article. They do their point of view in the debate no favours by constantly adding these edits back in. I am happy to discuss these concerns with the anonymous editor, with a view to finding out what the aim of edits are, but the constant re-insertion of poor material without discussion can’t continue.  Mdw0 (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting there, although the Origins of the dispite section really needs to be combined with the Hindu Account in the History section. Mdw0 (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Edits

message: From the first paragraph...
...a part of the sentence is missing before the second footnote from the newindpress.com reference. According from the history it may have been a some sort of collateral damage or was part of a sentence that is supposed to be deleted. Can please someone have it checked? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial readdition of text

message: The hindu account section have some piece of information which are irrelevant and does not clearly give out the Hindu's stand in the issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan.jsr (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The extended addition to this section is politically partisan, non POV, non-referenced and full of inflammatory material. The tone is anything but neutral. If the point of this was to make political points, I hope those points make this editor feel like a winner, but such material must be edited properly if it is to stay in a Wikipedia article. There is some useful information here about what actually happened on the day. If any proper references can be found, it should go into the Destruction section. Some other points about the lack of historical evidence for a temple complex at Ayodhya might go into the Muslim Account section. Since there is a section for the Muslim Account, it is not appropriate to have a such a long and extended refutation of the Hindu account. All the quotes need to be referenced, and currently, none of the quotes are referenced. Also, some referencing will need to be from neutral sources. A partisan Hindu publication is unlikely to provide the neceessary backup for controversial statements made in a controversial article. Please do not take this deletion as a personal attack on the editor yourself or the editor's political viewpoint, which is perfectly valid in and of itself - its just that a political POV cannnot be the basis of a Wikipedia article, especially in one as controversial as this one. Please try again.  Mdw0 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu account section need revision

message: I propose that the page Ram Janmabhoomi be merged into this one. Although the two concepts are theoretically different, the material in "Ram Janmabhoomi" is currently a subset of the material here, and there is no unique material that I know of that would be inappropriate to this page. I would suggest that a section be created in this article to cover the "Ram Janmabhoomi" concept in slightly greater detail than it currently is, and any unique material in the "Ram Janmabhoomi" article could be covered therein. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Babri Masjid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928085435/http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ayodhyabench4.html to http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ayodhyabench4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The last major edit was, overall, an improvement. It has removed a lot of poorly presented sections. However, the demolition needs to have more prominence in the opening paragraph. It is a fact that the destruction of the Babri Masjid gave it much more importance than it ever had while standing, and will be the main reason new readers come to this article. Also, the edit is too partisan. As well as the removal of the section in the opening paragraph which accurately and fairly portrays the drama of the building's destruction, any denial of a previous structure by Muslim groups and their supporters has been deleted, as though there wasn't any denial. There can't be an Ayodhya dispute if there's only one side arguing - both sides must be fairly represented. I suggest a re-entry of the statement in the opening paragraph about the destruction and a sentence or two about the views of the opposing side of the Ayodha dispute.Mdw0 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to re-add any content or make any other changes. I removed a lot of content that was unsourced or copy-pasted from Ayodhya dispute, Archaeology of Ayodhya, Demolition of the Babri Masjid, Liberhan Commission etc. If you feel that any of those topics need to be summarized more prominently in the lead or any other part of the article, please do so. utcursch | talk 02:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't yet looked at the edits in detail, but I agree with the approach of removing most of the Ayodhya dispute detail from this page. Basically, it is a pragmatic issue. We don't want contentious material duplicated on a lot of pages, because it is hard to maintain it and keep it all in sync. I have said this before earlier on this talk page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I have now violated my own suggestion by copying text from Ayodhya dispute into the Construction section. But there wasn't any other way to correct the misinformation contained in there. We can condense it down again if we wish. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edit 

message: In the light of the revelations that Sushil Srivastava has made in the Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Verdict - P.W. 15, Sushil Srivastava, I don't think his assessments belong in this article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but we would need a better source for that information before we take his assessment out of the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Already done . I don't know of anybody else that claimed that the inscription was a forgery. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sushil Srivastava 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Babri Masjid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018084907/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MARP,,BGD,,469f3869c,0.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.the-week.com/23sep07/events1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827003623/http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do to http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/DisplayAyodhyaBenchLandingPage.do
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: you just reverted my edit [], although I merely copied the other references cited in the article already. You can probably form a better sentence using those sources instead of removing them!-IvankaTr (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the shortcoming you wish to fix? Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: that there was a temple there before Babur built the mosque.-IvankaTr (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a matter of controversy, as the sources in the article explain. Vanamonde (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What was wrong with the edits of ?  confirms also the sention Babri Masjid#Archaeological excavations. Capitals00 (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   There is no need to give references for every sentence in the lead, the section about the excavations already state that report confirms the temple and I am only adding that. -sarvajna (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: The phrase "including official documents such as revenue records" is from  . The source was apparently Koenraad Elst, which has since mysteriously disappeared.
I can't verify the "revenue records" claim, except to say that the entire area was called "Janmasthan" in settlement records. This was so in 1861, 1893, 1931 and 1989. Apparently it was carried over from the earlier records in Nawwabi times. The revenue records don't show a masjid there, but note the area as "populated". In all the documents, Mahants are shown as subsidiary owners. In 1861 and possibly 1893, the Janmasthan was "Nazul land" (government land), but in 1931 it is shown to belong to Waqf, but the Mahants still as subsidary owners.
In a 1858 legal suit filed by the Muazzin of the mosque, the mosque is described as "Masjid-i Janmasthan", the courtyard as "maqam janmasthan ka" and the suit was filed against bairagiyan-i janmasthan". This makes sense. If the entire area is Janmasthan, a masjid inside it would be obviously "Masjid-i Janmasthan". Syed Sahabudin apparently agreed with this interpretation, but contested that this had anything to do with an earlier temple there. 
I suggest we keep "official documents" and drop "revenue records". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can source the documents, I'm fine with that. Not fine with using Elst as a source, though, so if it's a claim from him, or from someone copying him, we shouldn't be including it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue records 

message: There is mention of Hindu "activists" who demolished mosque - why are they called activists and not militants or terrorists? 62.216.205.33 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the policies posted in your welcome message. And, next time, please put new posts at the bottom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the Hindu Activists? 

message: The Supreme Court has ruled that the mosque should be rebuilt at an alternative site awarded to the Sunni Waqf Board and the temple rebuilt in the same place but why it gave such a ruling is not clear right now. I therefore request you to change the sentence in the lead which reads, "In 2003, a report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that there appears to have existed an old structure at the site." to, "In 2003, a report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that there appears to have existed an old structure at the site which was a Hindu temple over which the Babri Masjid was built." Thanks (you can cite more references if you please)!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5215:bd8d::1f4:c0a1 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WP:REFB or the Reference Desk may be able to help you.  Seagull123  Φ  17:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The existing reference cited (no.4) does say so!-Dr2Rao (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This and this can be cited as better references(they are not archived yet)!-Dr2Rao (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I hope you can reply.-Dr2Rao (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

text: , don't forget to set the template parameter to answered! Ed6767 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020 

message: , please revert this edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.40.61 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please revert 

message: I have removed from the infobox, this image with the caption "The Babri Mosque, upper left, in the 18th century. From William Hodges' Select Views in India in the Years 1780–1783.British Library"
It is true that the British Library claims it but the image is nothing like what we know the Babri Masjid to be, e.g., Indian Express, 4 June 2020.
Kishore Kunal discusses this painting in his book and states that the British Library is entirely mistaken. It is a painting of the "Svargadwari mosque" built by Aurangzeb near the Svargadwar ghat. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This book suggests that the scene depicted in the painting might have been imaginary. A later commentator complained that he couldn't even find the steps depicted there on the Saryu/Ghaghra. In any case, comparing it to the map given in the Anatomy of a Confrontation I conclude that this could have only been one of the two Aurangzeb mosques: "Svargadvari mosque" or "treta-ke-thakur"; certainly not the Babri Masjid. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a PD photo, it was easily found through Google image search. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done - let's see how long it lasts. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purported painting of Babri Masjid 

message: I was just going through some articles and found that the mosque was probably named after a boy named Babri, whom Babur loved. Mentioned here here which takes the reference from the book Babur nama from Dilip Hiro. Should we look into it as a potential reason to name the Mosque. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Baburnama isn't considered a reliable source, and mensxp.com isn't either. If you would like to add content about this theory, you will need to find better sources for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, I just wanted to start a conversation to see if it’s worth researching. But to your point, why do you think Babur nama is not a reliable source, I see a wiki page of it and also books published in different languages. Do you think there’s more to it that we should consider it as a reliable source. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Etymology?