Talk:Archaeology of Ayodhya

We need images!!

This is an extremely important article that underlies the Babri Masjid demolition and Ram Temple, a watershed event in recent history. I came here to find the evidence presented on all sides of whether or not there was a temple demolished and the Babri Masjid was built. It has only a single image. What were the archeological finds? Can I see them? The images presented in the court cases?

In general, there are little to no images related to the Babri Masjid and Ram Mandir controversy. I am putting image requests across several articles, if you can help.

--NittyG (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Images

Why is there no image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raguks (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

I do not understand reference number 16. How do I verify the claims made by it? Wouldn't it be better to remove those statements that are referenced by it? Shashi 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That must be a footnote, there may be a reference on the page.Bakaman 00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Smelly

This article stinks. It seems to be espousing the 'my people get this thing because we were here first' mentality that is extensively used by people who failed at diplomacy. It needs to be revamped completely. Sukiari (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the above comment means. I am trying to verify references and basically just copy edit the entries into readable, presentable matter. All help appreciated. :) Nshuks7 (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ashok Pant source

@BodBeral:, you are edit warring here [1]. As explained in my revert this source does not appear to be a reliable source as per WP:HISTRS. Please explain your reasons for including it here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060519183415/http://www.deccanherald.com:80/deccanherald/sep08/top.asp to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/sep08/top.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050803075538/http://www.hinduonnet.com:80/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20031107005801300.htm&date=fl2022/&prd=fline& to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20031107005801300.htm&date=fl2022/&prd=fline&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Archaeology of Ayodhya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110826072655/http://www.hinduonnet.com:80/thehindu/op/2003/10/14/stories/2003101400160300.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2003/10/14/stories/2003101400160300.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaeology of Ayodhya. 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/20061021153232/http://www.flonnet.com/fl1514/15141100.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl1514/15141100.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Revise "The ASI findings were disputed"?

As mentioned in the last paragraph of the article, the archaeological findings are no longer disputed since the Supreme Court of India has since evaluated all the evidence so far and made a judgement. The article requires revisions based on these results. Cwarrior (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

[2] has good layman summary of the evidences considered by the Supreme Court. Cwarrior (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Court verdict after analysis of ASI report

Disputed content:

On objections raised with regards to ASIs various scientific claims by the Muslim parties, the Supreme Court observed, the contesting parties could have raised it before the Allahabad High Court as there were legal remedies available for the same. The apex court of India also commented that the ASI report which was submitted on behalf of the Allahabad High Court was not an "ordinary opinion". At the same time, on The Historians report to the Nation authored by Aligrah historians and presented as an evidence, the court observed : "At the highest, this report can be taken as an opinion."

References

Kautilya3 Hello, you have reverted my edits in the section "Court verdict after analysis of ASI report" with edit summary - "these are superficial comments that add no value ot this page, which should be about the archaeology". The edits were clearly discussing the Courts analysis on the ASI report and well cited. Iam not sure how you see them as "superficial" and not worth a mention in the section discussing courts verdict? Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 12:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid the content you added didn't say anything of substance. What were these objections that were supposedly raised? When were they raised? What do the RS say about them?

And, which court?

An encyclopedia is supposed to inform. I am afraid you are simply adding trivial comments without any information.

Finally, I note that you have already added this content at Ayodhya dispute. What is the the point of having a separate page on "archaelogy" if you intend to duplicate all the dispute stuff here? This whole effort is entirely violate of WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 We are discussing about the page which deals with Archaeology of Ayodhya, which was done by ASI on the behalf of the Allahabad High Court. The page is judiciously populated with findings by ASI and Counter claims by one of the litigants. While giving the judgement both High Court and Supreme Court have considered it.

With regard to your point in "What were these objections that were supposedly raised, When were they raised? What do the RS say about them?":

• There's a whole section about this in the article - "Controversy regarding the archaeological findings" every question of yours is answered there.

My edits were clearly stating what the "Supreme Courts" observation were with regards to controversy /objections raised against ASI report. Iam sure it's "informing" about the Supreme Courts stand, explained in the relevant section in the article. I do not see anything trivial here, also would like to know, how NPOV is violated through these edits? Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 12:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your first sentence implies that there were objections raised by the Muslim parties in the Supreme Court which were not raised in the Allahabad High Court. What were these objections? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Objections were raised in the High Court against ASI report, but were dismissed after due diligence by the bench. Further, similar objections were raised again in the Supreme Court by the way of "Appealing against the High Court judgement" to which Supreme Court had to deal with. The comments by the SC are in that context. The case is in SC was an Appeal of HC Judgement and not a New Case. So the old arguments gets carried forward.

"The Muslim parties also attacked 2003 Archeological Survey of India report which had found certain remains, idols and artefacts suggesting existence of a structure before Babri Masjid saying it does not provide a verifiable conclusion and is mostly based on inferences."

There are many in the current article itself. Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 13:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• If this content belongs anywhere, it belongs in the article about the case. It's not relevant to the archaeology. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A whole section is dedicated on "Controversy regarding the archaeological findings" to rebut the findings of an "High Court" appointed and monitored ASI excavation. Based on which the Courts (among many other evidences) relied and made a Judgement, for which again a dedicated sub-section named: "Court verdict after analysis of ASI report" is included in the article. But, according to you, the senior editors, the comments made by the Court with respect to the questions raised by the litigants in the "Controversy regarding..." section is not relevant to be added in the relevant section is bit amusing. However, I seek your help in finding the appropriate context and space to add the content in the article about the case. Santoshdts ^[TalkToMe] 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Stuff copied from B. B. Lal

Joshua Jonathan, I am intending to revert this edit of yours, which is said to have copied content from the B. B. Lal page. I find it full of polemics and innuendo and short on substance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I object; it also changed the structure of the article. What exactly do you find "full of polemics"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The very section title "Lal's pillars (1990)" smacks of a partisan attack. And what is the first sentence saying? Why such WP:CITEKILL, without even saying what the "controversial stance" is? What does this have to do with archaeology of Ayodhya anyway?

Multiple "historians" are supposed to have criticised it. Well, historians are not archaeologists. All these historians had a chance to testify in the Allahabad High Court and their testimonies fell apart under cross-examinations. Here is a sample of what happened in the court.

Most citations are missing urls or miss page numbers etc. (This is characteristic of POV pushers.) The ones I checked are hardly authentic. Kristin Romey is hardly a scholar. She is at best a scientific journalist. Brian Hole apparently did a PhD on this dispute and went off to doing something else. He cites a key publication (Lal 2001) but then ignores everything that was revealed in it. Romey doesn't even cite it. She isn't aware of it at all.

Whatever might be our predelictions, there are clearly two camps: pro-Masjid and pro-Mandir. No THIRDPARTY scholars have managed to interrogate the two sides the way Allahabd High Court managed to do. So we can't ignore the Court judgement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Well, then clean-up that section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a waste of time. All the stuff copied from the B. B. Lal page is crap. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Brian Hole

Brian Hole writes here: "I am researching the role of heritage in defining identity in India, from the perspectives of the nation state and of minority groups."

So you would think, "brilliant, here is somebody who knows archaeology and he is examining identity politics". But, as far as Ayodhya is concerned, I don't see him having done any new investigation other than what has already been published in various places. (UCL thesis). For example, B. B. Lal had said repeatedly that his funding was cut off and he could't complete the report of his excavations. Obviously, it was cut off by the "nation state". You would think a scholar investigating the issue would try to find out why it was cut off, who did it and for what reason. No such luck!

So when he says "It is difficult to accept Lal's explanation of events...", it is just idle speculation and hardly based on any facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Another interesting comment: "Despite his adamant position, other than one photograph, Lal has never made the notebooks and sketches of his excavation available to other scholars.." (p. 84)

Kishore Kunal writes that, when he was the special officer for coordinating the VHP-BMAC negotiations, the BMAC historians requested the archaeological materials. The Director General of ASI wrote back,

The matter has been examined at the highest level and it has been decided that the experts may be shown photographs (enclosed) of the controversial trench AVID-4 pertaining the Ayodhya to excavations to clarify the locus of the excavator's findings. Any scholar on the basis of photographs can assess nature of the exposed structure and understand himself the relation between the structures and stratigraphy.

So Lal is being blamed for the decisions being made by the "highest level", whoever it is. And a scholar who claims to be an advocate of "public archaeology" has no interest in these matters! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

GOI also said that if necessary, others can meet with Lal at a common venue to get their hands on the notebooks. This never happened despite Jha et al making multiple requests to Lal for years.

Kunal's claim that Jha's insistence showed his condescending attitude only highlights his inexperience about how archeological excavations are conducted, and their findings reevaluated with time. Two photographs can never be a substitute for notebooks - a lot of background information and minute details of immense significance can be gleaned from them. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, GOI squashed it, right from Indira Gandhi's time. But Brian Hole doesn't have any clue about it and he is barking up the wrong tree. He doesn't really know how "identity politics" works. So we are still talking about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Split article? "Archaeology of the Ayodhya Dispute"

I think we should have a separate article called "Archaeology of the Ayodhya Dispute".

This article is about excavations of Ayodhya, broadly. It's like saying that Angkor Wat should only be within the article on archaeology in Angkor (if there was such an article).

I found this article linked from the article "Ayodhya dispute", with the intention of finding archaeological evidence in the surveys ordered of the land underneath the demolished Babri Masjid. The subject of this article is the city of Ayodhya, and the subject of a birthplace of Ram overwhelms the article, and likewise a birthplace of Ram deserves an article by itself, without details of other sites. The significance of this article cannot be understated - It underlies the claims of legitimacy around a watershed event in recent history.

Let me know your thoughts, before I'd separate the articles.

NittyG (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)