Jan Arvid Götesson

January 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ram Mandir, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Why do you use the Template:Uw-disruptive1 instead of discussing with your own words?

As you know, the second sentence of this article, “Many Hindus believe that it is located at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi, the mythical birthplace of Rama, a principal deity of Hinduism” has been attacked many times. The reason is that many people have religions and political ideas. The current wording of the sentence is the best that can be achieved. There is a little bit of weasel wording (“Many Hindus believe” but it cannot be avoided in this case. The important words are “believe” and ”the mythical birthplace of Rama, a principal deity” (not a historical person).

The sentence should be set in stone. Consensus is that Rama is mythical. That’s it, end of story. The sentence should not be tampered with indirectly, by adding footnotes, I think. The current footnote begins with this peculiar sentence: ”The term ‘mythical,” or ‘mythological,’ is loaded.” What is the point of saying that? Loaded in whose opinion? Rama and his story and birthplace are mythical; it is not a loaded word. Why is that sentence there?

The middle section, from ”In the Hindu Epic” (why capital E in “Epic”) ”to the real birthplace now” or perhaps “passion around such holy sites” seems to contain useful information. The last sentences do not seem to contain any useful information. The last words “Religious belief does not depend upon rational evidence” are especially meaningless.

The purpose the footnote is not clear to readers I don’t think. I appears to be an attempt to soften the impact of the word “mythical”, for those people who want to change the second sentence for religion or political reasons. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The note supports the word "mythical," and it reminds that the word also inflames religious passions. There are two sides to it, and while it is convincingly argued that the term applies here, we are also able to take into account the passions of those who oppose the term. The last sentence, which is full part of the Dumper-quote, is an acknowledgement of these passions, which are not 'purely' religious, but also touch on identity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Those things should be discussed later in the article. There is no reason for an “acknowledgement of these passions”, in a footnote to the second sentence, but they can be discussed further down. The two first sentences define and explain what Ram Mandir is. We should not be concerned whether a word ”inflames religious passions”. Adding a footnote that says “The term ‘mythical,’ or ‘mythological,’ is loaded” looks as if we were trying to placate the large number of people who have been arguing and trying to change the article because of their religious beliefs and political ideas. There are no ”two sides to it”. It is mythical and nothing else. There are only “sides” in the minds of some people whose beliefs and policies are not relevant. Apart from that, the footnote confuses the average reader. A person who has heard about Ram Mandir and wants to know more will be puzzled by this unexpected mini‑essay that for no good reason claims that a word would be “loaded“. Loaded according to whom? “Mythical” is not loaded in itself, which makes the footnote unsuitable. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)