Talk:Ayodhya dispute
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayodhya dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A news item involving Ayodhya dispute was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 September 2010. |  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The reference to so called progressive international claiming it's fascism is completely pov pushing as supreme court has reviewed the archaeological evidences and then handed over the land to the temple , meanwhile to reference makes it seem like as if the temple is built by demolishing something which existed there from beginning of history , whereas the truth is a temple existed there before an illegal mosque . So plz review it Abraca21 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change the word "Demolition to Deconstruction" since it is misleading... Truthsucker (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this phrase:
coming to power in the 11th century CE
please remove the CE. An era indicator is needed for CE dates only when they're ambiguous: In general, omit CE or AD, except to avoid ambiguity or awkwardness, per WP:ERA. The previous sentence says this happened "after the Guptas"; the previous section is entitled "Gupta period"; and the previous paragraph ends with an event in 450 CE. Obviously an event after 450 CE was in a CE year, so "11th century" is unambiguous. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Done for now: Unless others disagree.
— Urro[talk][edits] 15:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2024 (2)
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence is very long:
According to the Ramayana, Rama was a prince born in the Ikshvaku city of Ayodhya (which may not be the same as modern Ayodhya[23]) to parents Kaushalya and Dasharatha in the Treta Yuga,[24] that is thousands of years before the Kali Yuga which is supposed to have begun in 3102 BCE according to the Hindu tradition.
After "Treta Yuga", please change the comma to a full stop and then change "that" to "That". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done: That'd change the meaning as it becomes a WP:WIKIVOICE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 23:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- DaxServer, as you read it, what does the sentence currently mean? I understand it to say "According to the Ramayana, such-and-such, i.e. according to Hindu tradition, this was thousands of years before such-and-such", so I just want to split the two "according two" elements. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Since DaxServer has ignored this question, I've reopened this. If you reject the request, please explain in detail how splitting the sentence changes the meaning. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this sentence is awful - it took me five minutes of cross checking links to even figure out what it was talking about. Question: Do we even need the second half of the sentence at all? Why not just:
- According to the Ramayana, Rama was a prince born in the Ikshvaku city of Ayodhya (which may not be the same as modern Ayodhya[23]) to parents Kaushalya and Dasharatha during the Treta Yuga (second age of the current Yuga Cycle).
- PianoDan (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Question: Just making sure, has a consensus been reached yet or not? Shadow311 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit semi-protected}}template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
