Talk:Rama/Archive 2

Historicity section ?[edit]

Do we need this section at all, which currently contains claims by non-notable auto-didacts, which have been covered by popular media (in the weird news of the day style) but engendered no scholarly response ? I can't imagine that any other encyclopedic article will care to include this undue recentism.
Note: There may be respectable sources on the historicity of Rama (comparable to the ones in Historicity of Jesus#References), which would justify retaining this section. I am only claiming that the current contents are non-notable and not the topic per se. Abecedare 21:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unnotable as it stands. I left it tagged for a while out of courtesy, but since it remains unaddressed, I suggest we remove it. There is some half-notable literature claiming that the Ramayana depicts the society of the Indus Valley Civilization (which flourished 2,000 years before the epic), your best bet for this is S.R.Rao (the "Dwaraka is Atlantis" chap), but not even Rao goes as far as claiming a "historical Rama". --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is Akso Parpola (April-June, 2002). "Pandaih and Sita: On the Historical Background of the Sanskrit Epics". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 122 (2): 361–373. doi:10.2307/3087631. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Doldrums 13:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these articles (such as the one by Asko Parpola) talk about the possible historical background of Ramayana, so this stuff should go to the article Ramayana. utcursch | talk 13:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to the article Historicity of Rama. It was deleted under the claim of being moved to the article: Rama but now the section has been removed!! Please replace this info. Kkrystian 17:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain the deletion of Historicity of Rama and the history section under Rama. I think the explanation/reasons given here are unsatisfactory.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a site dedicated to the Historical Rama -http://www.historicalrama.org/ . Other sources:

Lord Ram was born in 5114 BC
"Ramlila in Delhi (Lav Kush Ramlila Committee, Redfort)," http://www.lavkush.com* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.15.235 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History Versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir Presented by the Vishva Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91, By Viśva Hindū Parishad, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Published by Voice of India, 1991

(Ekabhishek (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rama v Rama Raghava[edit]

The two articles are about the same person. Thus they should be merged with a redirect. Any reasons not to do it? Wikidās ॐ 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-generated content[edit]

A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Rama (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 16:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Appeared 20 Million Years Ago[edit]

It is know from Vedic Sources that Rama appeared almost 20 million years ago in the 24th Treta-Yuga on the current Manvantara. Shouldn’t his birth almost 20 million years ago be listed in the article. Here are some of the many sources I have found that confirm Rama incarnated 20 million years ago in the 24th Treta Yuga of the Current Manvantara. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

http://www.girirajji.com/other-avtars.html

http://sreeramakshetram.net/

http://www.indianresurgence.com/hindutva11.htm

http://nitaaiveda.com/Essays_and_Articles/When_did_Lord_Rama_appear.htm

http://www.iskconbrampton.ca/IB_Newsletter/NewsletterApr&May08.pdf

http://www.heb.gov.sg/hindumagazine/shm-sriramachandra.html

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/30963-dating-ramayana.html

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0208/63.html

http://sanjit-sdps.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-old-is-ram-setu-dr.html

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/35117-how-long-ago-lord-sri-ramachandra-present-earth.html

http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/literature/brahma.html

http://bharata-hindunation.blogspot.com/2008/09/ram-setu-save-our-heritage.html

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/185285-authentic-india-hindu-history-timeline-corrected-british-distortions.html

http://indiaculture.net/talk/messages/128/9712.html?1002297138

http://hitxp.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/birth-date-of-rama/

http://bhargavasarma.blogspot.com/

http://books.google.com/books?id=a2KPChj7lTwC&pg=PA511&lpg=PA511&dq=What+yuga+did+Rishabha+appear+in% 3F&source=bl&ots=NaZ_39f4aS&sig=Lojrt-0tCNFKeBAYQgbTZRNapI8&hl=en&ei=BwH9SYO4Jp7EtAOXnoDXAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 Eronel189 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this issue to the talk page, instead of adding the content repeatedly to this article and Ramayana. Note that:

Rama is not a Vedic deity. The primary sources for him are the Ramayana and the Puranas.
None of the sources you list above are acceptable for wikipedia; see WP:RS for waht kind of sources are considered reliable. For subjects like Rama, Ramayana, we essentially need to look for articles or books by reputable authors published by mainline publishers.

That said, if you can find a source that talks about the traditional dating for Rama's life, we can add that to the article and attribute it to the relevant scriptural text. Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE VEDAS, VEDIC CULTURE, SANSKRIT, THE VEDIC PERIOD, and HINDUISM ARE OVER 311 TRILLION, 40 BILLION YEARS OLD[edit]

Hi I, I am writing this because I believe there needs to be serious change on Wikipedia articles involving the age of the Vedas, Vedic Culture, Sanskrit, The Vedic Period, and Hinduism. I already acknowledge that science does not agree with the fact that the Vedas are hundreds of trillions of years old, but even so there could still be some acknowledgement that Hindus do believe there Religion, Culture, and Vedas are Hundreds of trillions of years old as it was revealed to Bramha by Krishna (Vishnu) at the time of his birth about 158.7 trillion years ago. The Vedas were spoken in Sanskrit and then Bramha spoke it to mankind and the Vedas were written down in Sanskrit hundreds of trillions of years ago by Mankind. Bramha lives for 311 trillion, 40 billion years and about 51 years of his life is over. This means the Vedas have been spoken for at least 158.7 trillion years. There are many cycles of Brama. After Bramha dies there is a period of unmanifestation in the Universe which lasts for 311 trillion, 40 billion years (the lifetime of Bramha). Then a new Bramha is born and Krishna (Vishnu) speaks the Vedas to him again and thus it is passed on to Mankind. This is a central belief in Hinduism about the Orgin of the Vedas. Also the Avatars of Vishnu appear millions, and billions of years ago. For example Krishna appeared in the 28th Treta-Yuga of the current Manvantara 5236 years ago and He spoke the Bhagavad-Gita in around 3141 BC. This gives the age of the Bhagavad-Gita 5,150 Years. In the Bhagavad-Gita it is mentioned that Krishna first spoke the Bhagavad-Gita to the Sun God Vivisvan over 2 million years ago. This should be mentioned. In Hinduism Rama incarnated nearly 20 million years ago in the 24th Treta Yuga in the current Manvantra and Parshurama incarnated over 41 million years ago in the 19th Treta Yuga. Vamana is said to have incarnated 93 million years ago in the 7th Treta Yuga of the current Manvantara and Matsya, Kurma, Nrismha, and Varah incarnated at the beginning of the current Manvantara during the Satya Yuga which means they incarnated over 120 Million year ago. It is also mentioned that these Lila or Kalpa Avatars descend every 8.64 Billion Years (A Day of Bramha). I think that these are important beliefs that should be mentioned. I have spent many hours finding many reliable sources about these beliefs. I am not saying that you have to believe this and state this as truth. All I am saying is that in the Wikipedia articles you acknowledge this as Hindu beliefs. It is important that this is at least acknowledged as important Hindu beliefs of the date of their religion and gods. You can still keep Your Scientific European dates of the Vedas of 1,000, 2,000 years but it would be nice if you acknowledged the fact that Hindus believe their religion, culture, and Vedas are hundreds of trillions of years old and their incarnations have appeared millions and billions of years ago. I have included sources on the declining life expectancy of the Yugas. The length of Bramh’s day and Life, Creation of the Vedas, many sources confirming Hindu’s believe in 330 Million Gods and sources that state the 25 lila avatars of Vishnu and that they descend once in day Bramha. I have given many sources that state Hindus believe the Bhagavad-Gita is older than 5,000 years old. Since Krishna incarnated during the last Dvapara Yuga 5,236 years ago and Kali-Yuga began on 3102 BC. When Krishna departed. This means our current Kali-Yuga began 5,111 years ago. Also I given information on Manvantars and shown that a Manvantara is about 307 million years long and a new Manu lives in Each Manvantara. When the Flood wipes out the population every 307 million years Manu restores the Vedas and Vedic Civilization. Also during every Dvapara Yuga God descends and writes down the Vedas for a new Kali-Yuga. I have given names for all of these writers in each Dvapara Yuga. All of this information is sourced. Also every 8.64 billion years after Bramha wakes up from his night he restores the Vedic Civilization in the Universe and the Vedas are thus written down again every time Bramha wakes up. Bramha lives for 311 trillion, 40 Billion Years and his day is 4.32 billion years long and his night is also 4.32 billion years long. Bramha has 360 days in his 1 year and he lives for 100 of his years which means he lives for 36,000 days. This means that Bramha restarts the Vedic Civilization 36,000 times during his life and the Vedas are rewritten over 36,000 times in Sanskrit and given to Humanity. In addition the Vedas are written at the end of every Dvapara-Yuga to prepare for the Ignorace of the Kali-Yuga. Since people will be generally less intelligence the Vedas are re-written at the end of every Dvapara-Yuga. Vysa was the last one of these writers who re-wrote the Vedas 5,200 Years ago. I have given the age of all of these Yugas as Satya Yuga is 1.728 Million Years long, Treta Yuga is 1.296 Million Years long, Dvapra Yuga is 864,000 years long, and Kali-Yuga is 432,000 Years long. Since there are innumberable Bramhas the Vedas are rewritten also every 622 trillion, 80 billion years. Krishna (Vishnu) first gives Bramha the Vedas and then in 311 trillion, 40 billion years Bramha dies and there is an equal period of unmanifestation of 311 trillion, 40 billion years in which the Universe is void. This equals 622 trillion, 80 billion years. Then another Bramha is born the Vedas are rewritten again. The Vedas are written in Sanskrit and since like the Vedas Sanskrit is present in innumerable cycles of 311 trillion, 40 billion years Sanskrit as a language is also considered eternal. Can’t this be acknowleged in the Hindu articles as important beliefs of Hindu’s. I am not asking for you to accept this as true, I am only asking you to acknowledge the fact that this is what Hindu’s believe about the Vedas, Sanskrit, and their religion. They believe that the Vedas are hundreds of trillions of years old, and Sanskrit too. Thus they believe Hinduism was founded by God and is many hundreds of trillions of years old. Can this just be acknowleged that Hindu’s believe the Bhagavad-Gita is about 5,150 years old, than Krishna appeared 5,236 years ago that Rama appeared about 20 million years ago and Parshurama appeared about 41.5 million years ago and Vamana apperared about 93 million years ago and that Matsya, Kurma, Varah, and Nrisma appeared over 120 million years ago and that they all appear every 8.64 billion years (A day of Bramha). Here are my many sources about these topics. Thank You for taking the time and effort to read this.

I have many sources that show that in Satya Yuga the average lifespan was 100,000 years. In Treta Yuga the average lifespan was 10,000 years. In Dvapara Yuga the average lifespan was 1,000 years. Here are some sources.

YUGA LIFESPANS

http://veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/time.htm

http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html

http://www.salagram.net/kalki.html

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Yugas

http://books.google.com/books?id=a2KPChj7lTwC&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=People+live+for+100,000+years+in+Satya+Yuga&source=bl&ots=Na_Z7ba4fL&sig=WUK0Ea_OmIAfl7267iQrEH7RAtw&hl=en&ei=iqqMSoj7NoTysQOTrIDkCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.starworldnews.com/kalpas-and-yugas.html

http://www.7thunders.com/mf/vision7/currentageofdarkness.pdf

http://www.srivaishnava.org/sgati/sddsv2/v02019.htm

http://www.healthandyoga.com/html/news/psychological/spm_yae.asp

http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/bhakta/chapter19.html

http://www.vaikunt.org/AyyaVaikuntar/kalanemi.htm

http://courseware.acadiau.ca/courses/engl/3663/wiki/index.php/Kalyug

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Yuga

http://salvia.us/archive/10815.shtml

http://sawaal.ibibo.com/puja-and-rituals/which-r-4-yugas-according-hinduism-454649.html

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/538112.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7708796/Yuga

Here are some sources proving that there are 330 Million gods in Hinduism

330 MILLION HINDU GODS

http://www.angelfire.com/id/croon/india/hindugods.html

http://www.slamnet.org.uk/re/hinduism.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/id/croon/india/krishna.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/hinduism.html http://vpverma.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!67605D0E98041091!115.entry

http://hindu.newsbeet.com/story/330-Million-Gods-in-Hindu-Religion/

http://hindu.newsbeet.com/

http://www.madison.com/communities/americanhindu/pages/Hinduism_is_the_.php?php_page_set=0

http://www.festivalsinindia.net/gods/index.html

http://www.religiousportal.com/HinduDeities.html

http://www.newsreleaser.com/0000004577.html

http://www.cbn.com/health/fitness/bagby_yoga-alternative.aspx

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16402.htm

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/thought/religious-biblical-religion.htm

http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=13291

http://www.worldlanguage.com/Japanese/Products/Lonely-Planet-Travel-Guide-India-10th-Edition-English-45071.htm

http://www.sujanks.com/hindu/

Here are my sources for Brahma’s 311 trillion, 40 billion year lifespan. I have many sources but if you would like more I could get thousands more just ask. Thank You.

BRAMHA’S LIFESPAN IS 311 TRILLION, 40 BILLION YEARS AND HIS DAY IS 8.64 BILLION YEARS

http://vedabase.net/bg/8/17/en1

http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/111.htm

http://www.kanglaonline.com/index.php?template=printkshow&kid=910

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_12/0006.html

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Hindu_units_of_measurement

http://www.experiencefestival.com/kalki-avatara

http://www.utahkrishnas.com/main/page.asp?id=999

http://www.holloworbs.com/daitya.htm

http://www.experiencefestival.com/years

http://www.deepmusic.org/essence.htm

http://namahatta.org/en/node/6996

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/8/17/en1

http://www.krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/mail/msg00008.html

http://www.krishna.org/sudarsana/archive/mail/msg00005.html

http://experiencefestival.com/treta_yuga/page/2

http://experiencefestival.com/yuga/page/2

http://www.newtalavana.org/bhaktivrksha/week-35.htm

http://members.fortunecity.com/bala595/hindu.htm

http://www.yoga-philosophy.com/eng/kala.htm

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/soph/sopsml05.htm

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200607/tt00447.html

http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200212/tt00702.html

RAMA APPEARED 20 MILLION YEARS AGO IN THE 24TH TRETA YUGA OF THE CURRENT MANVATARA The first source is a reliable source from ISKCON (INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS) http://www.iskconbrampton.ca/IB_Newsletter/NewsletterApr&May08.pdf (Official Source from the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) http://www.girirajji.com/other-avtars.html http://sreeramakshetram.net/ http://www.indianresurgence.com/hindutva11.htm http://nitaaiveda.com/Essays_and_Articles/When_did_Lord_Rama_appear.htm http://www.iskconbrampton.ca/IB_Newsletter/NewsletterApr&May08.pdf http://www.heb.gov.sg/hindumagazine/shm-sriramachandra.html http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/30963-dating-ramayana.html http://www.hvk.org/articles/0208/63.html http://sanjit-sdps.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-old-is-ram-setu-dr.html http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/35117-how-long-ago-lord-sri-ramachandra-present-earth.html http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/literature/brahma.html http://bharata-hindunation.blogspot.com/2008/09/ram-setu-save-our-heritage.html http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/185285-authentic-india-hindu-history-timeline-corrected-british-distortions.html http://indiaculture.net/talk/messages/128/9712.html?1002297138 http://hitxp.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/birth-date-of-rama/ http://bhargavasarma.blogspot.com/ http://books.google.com/books?id=a2KPChj7lTwC&pg=PA511&lpg=PA511&dq=What+yuga+did+Rishabha+appear+in%3F&source=bl&ots=NaZ_39f4aS&sig=Lojrt-0tCNFKeBAYQgbTZRNapI8&hl=en&ei=BwH9SYO4Jp7EtAOXnoDXAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2

MATSYA APPEARED 122 MILLION YEARS AGO AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MANVATARA AND ALSO 2 BILLION YEARS AGO AT THE BEGINNIG OF BRAMHA’S DAY

Here is an account of Matsya’s incarnation

http://bvml.org/SBBTM/sma.html

THE 25 LILA OR KALPA AVATARS OF VISHNU APPEAR EVERY 8.64 BILLION YEARS

Here is a list of the 25 Avatars of Vishnu known as Lila Avatars. They are also referred to as Kalpa Avatars because they appear every Kalpa or day of Bramha which is 8.64 billion years.

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/avatars.htm#2

KRISHNA APPEARS EVERY 8.64 BILLION YEARS

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0008/ET23-6179.html

THE VEDAS ARE OVER 311 TRILLION, 40 BILLION YEARS OLD

Krishna spoke the Vedas to Bramha during his birth 311 trillion, 40 Billion years ago. Thus the Vedas are 311 trillion, 40 Billion years old. Bramha then passed the Vedas on to mankind. Since the Vedas were originally spoken in Sanskrit by Krishna to Bramha to mankind this means that the Sanskrit language is also over 311 trillion, 40 billion years old.

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/vedas-purpose-origin.htm

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cosmology.htm

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003342.html

THE BHAGAVAD-GITA IS OVER 5,000 YEARS OLD

The fact that the Bhagavad-Gita was written during the Mahabharta means that the Mahabharta is also over 5,000 years old.

http://news.iskcon.com/node/1593

http://www.yoganetwork.co.uk/about-yoga/classic-yoga-texts/bhagavad-gita.html (Dated to 3141 BC) http://www.highestwisdom.com/

http://www.creedopedia.com/topics/Bhagavad-Gita

http://satyuga.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=30

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/449905-when-bhagavad-gita-written.html

http://www.lifepositive.com/chinmayamission/gita.html

http://veda.wikidot.com/bhagavad-gita

http://www.sacredriversyoga.com/bhagavad.html

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/vyasa.html

http://search.techrepublic.com.com/search/bhagavad+gita.html

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/947

http://www.iskconhk.org/html/en/activities/events/index.php?CLm=11&CLd=9&CLy=2007&c_num=Demo_horizontal

http://www.teosofia.com/gita/gita-intro.html

http://nytsanga.blogspot.com/

http://www.kuzhalmannamagraharam.info/articles/bhagavadgita-and-management.html

http://scsmath-canada.com/

http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna35.html

http://www.asitis.com/8/17.html

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/enlightenment/enlightenment.htm

http://press.krishna.com/book/export/html/5

http://www.iskconbellingham.com/?page_id=12

http://www.anusha.com/krishna.htm

There are Millions of more sources If you want Just Search IT.

Thank You once again for your time and effort.

Eronel189 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eronel189, As I mentioned above, if you have a reliable source for the traditional dating of Rama's life, we can include that information in the article. Huge text dumps and listing numerous unreliable website is worth nothing, and edit-warring is not the way to go. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Text dumps about yugas do not constitute a conversation. The birthplace is still there at Ayodhya? Its there, so it ain't 40 billion years old. No tract of land survives for 311 Trillion, 40 billion years--Whiteguru (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Lead image edit-warring[edit]

Current image
Alternate #1
Alternate #2
Alternate #3

Truth only truth, the article has had a stable lead/infobox image for at least a year and a half. Rather than edit-warring, you should discuss your proposed change, and try to find consensus for a new image (or to keep the current image). See WP:CON to learn how to work in cooperation with other editors, and then follow those guidelines by trying to find consensus on this talk page. Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main image has been updated for the better of the reader, so that he or she gets the best. The previous image is a painting that is more of a personal opinion as it shows Rama, Laxman, and Sita in modern outfits (Mughal in my opinion). It is merely a painting. The image that I have updated has been taken from a Hindu temple and this is what is the general trend of depiction of Ram and Sita in Hindu temples in India and abroad. Anyone who has been to a few Hindu temples can confirm the validity of my update. Run a Google search on Ram and you will find that my image edit is deserved.Truth only truth (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed lead image is a Wikimedia Commons file: [1]. It has been taken from Bhaktivedanta Manor, a temple in Watford England.Truth only truth (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the latest image you are proposing in the box above, along with the current image. Editors are invited to give feedback, or propose other images. I personally much prefer the current one, as the other is not very artistic or notable/historic. If you click on the large version of each one, that is especially true. The current image is a 17th century painting from the Smithsonian Museum. Truth only truth, thanks for discussing, and please give several days for other editors to give their opinion so there can be consensus. Priyanath ^talk 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed image is already included in the article- just scroll down and look ! Instead of edit-warring on the lede image why not try searching for better examples that (1) have some historical value/significance, and (2) perhaps depict Rama more clearly (larger fraction of the image), (3) have a free license ? Abecedare (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this but putting an image from down to up is not against any Wiki policy. My cause is clear -- the depiction should be as close to acceptance as possible .Truth only truth (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another possible alternative (#2). It's no better than the current choice, but at least shows a blue-skinned Rama in yellow dhoti, as is traditional for Vishnu avatars in Indian art. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one takes out the Hanuman from the present image [2] then it does not even look like an image of Ram, Sita, and Laxman. The ideal image would be [3], we are looking for such a copyright free image. Most Hindus have images like [4] in their home temples. The main image is need not illustrate art but reality.Truth only truth (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by, "not illustrate art but reality". Any lead image of Rama will necessarily be an artistic depiction of Rama. All three images above + the bhaktiyoga image are simply examples of such representations during different time periods.

See the infobox image in Ganesha and read its footnote to see what would make an ideal candidate. Museums or books are likely to be the best places to look for such images and iconographic analysis. Abecedare (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Reality' means a depiction which common people understand in the present day. If a painting was produced in the 17th century and has an artistic impression, it does not mean that it is the generally accepted impression. We can use both the images you have suggested in this article in the art section on Rama, but I think for the main image we need a better one like [5]. Abecedare, your uploaded image of Parvati-Ganesh [6], which was being used as a lead image in the article on Parvati is highly offensive. Roaming in a T-shirt painted with your uploaded image [7] in India would lead a person into serious troubles. More can be discussed on image sense.Truth only truth (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About File:Lord Ram.jpg, if I remember right, this image was the infobox image of this article before it was deleted on Commnons as copyright violation. Now, it is uploaded again. About File:Srisita_ram_laxman_hanuman_manor.JPG, the marble statues that ISKCON temples often have, do not reflect the blue colour of Rama's traditional iconography.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate #3 is a common representation of Rama's coronation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Alternate #3 is fit to be the lead image. I vote for Alternate #3. -- Truth only truth (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative #3 is worth including in the article. The only problem in making it the lede image is that it would be difficult to list all the persons shown in the poster, since that may make the caption unwieldy for the infobox. Also, Red, is there a way to photoshop out the blowup in the bottom-center of the image ? Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that but lots of hands in between. The caption could be "coronation of Rama with Sita (center on the throne), surrounding by his brothers and other deities including Hanuman (bottom left)" No need to enlist everyone. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for now and an improvement over the current image. Can update if and when we find better example. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the lead image makes sense. -- Truth only truth (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image doesn't contain the source Ashish Sharma (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image has the source in the description as British Museum. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image as at 16 February 2011 is not an appropriate image for this page. It is more an idol than is it an image that captures the essence of Rama, Sita, his court, and the Ramayana. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rama/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

The article is not at the moment anywhere near GA quality. The lead section has a fair amount of reliable sources in it, but this section is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, whereas it now contains unique information. Then there is the "Etymology" section with no references at all, which it certainly should have. After this there are sporadic references, but these are almost entirely references to the Ramayana, which must be considered a primary source, which makes use of it original research. Further to this, there is plenty (probably excessive) of information on the mythology of Rama, but almost none on modern scholarship on the deity, and social aspects of the cult around him. Lampman (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. 128.232.247.165 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premchanda: The article is indeed very good and informative about Hinduism. I have created a wikipedia page on "Tamsa river" which is refered in this article for Rama. Also I have linked the river "tamsa" to wikipedia page "Tamsa river". Also i don't know how to place comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Premchanda (talk • contribs) 05:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Views of Rama[edit]

Hi everybody, I have seen in many articles such as Jesus, and Krishna many views of each are provided in different religions for example, a Christian View of Jesus is given along with a Muslim view, a Bahai view ect, and with Krishna a Amhadhiya Islam view is given, a Jain view, ect. For the same reason of expanding this article could we give a Krishna Conscious view of Rama as the 22nd avatara of Krishna? I think this would be nice since other deities have multiple views. I was also wondering if the other 25 avatars of Krishna could also get a Krishna Conscious view so that the articles can be well balanced with many different viewpoints. Please let me know if this is okay. Thank You very much for your time and cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.186.94 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON's focus on Krishna is important, and mentioned in the Krishna article. However their views on other avatars are not noteworthy features of the subjects, and are best discussed in ISKCON and Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness articles. Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ISKCON view is a sectarian, minority view, not of mainstream Hinduism and Vaishnavism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good but since in many articles such as the Jesus article so many views are given from different religious beliefs. Isn't it only fair that a Krishna Conscious view is also included. In articles like the Jesus article there are Muslim views, Christian, Sikh Views, Amhadyia views, Hindu Views, Krishna Conscious views, Buddhist views etc. This is a good article because it is well rounded and includes more than one view. For this reason I don't think it is unreasonable to add one small sentence in the beginning explaining a differing view. What do you think? Thank You very much for your time and cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.186.94 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above ISKON's view is undue in this article because (1) ISKOCN forms a small sliver of Hinduism (few thousand among around a billion Hindus), and (2) its views on Rama are neither central to its beliefs, nor are they a noteworthy feature of the subject of this article. You'll note that ISKCON is mentioned on the Krishna page, because while they still represent a tiny minority view, ISKCON is partially responsible for the spread of Krishna awareness in the West. Since the latter reason does not apply here, or any other Vishnu avatar pages, ISKCON's views on those are best discussed at ISKCON and Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness articles. Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mythology?[edit]

why does it say mythology? is this also said for other religions on wikipedia? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC). Rama might have been a mythological figure, but as he is considered to be a real God re-incarnate by Hindus, one must not start a wiki page on him stating him to be a myth - just like is done in case of the wiki pages on Jesus Christ and Allah. Only later on - on the page - the issue of him being real or mythological should be highlighted.[reply]

Ram's Birth Time[edit]

The Previous date 1450 BC for Ram's Birth makes no sense. Krishn is known to be born at the end of Dvapar Yuga in 3228 BC. Ram was born in the 24th Treta Yuga which would place his birth around 20 Million BC. The Laghu-bhagavatamrta confirms Rama was born in the 24th Treta Yuga. Even if Rama was born in the current Treta Yuga he would still have been born atleast 2 Million years ago. Since 5,112 Years of Kali Yuga has passed, and before that 864,000 years of Dvapara Yuga, and 1.296 Million Years of Treta Yuga. By Hindu calculations it would be impossible to come up with a date of 1450 BC unless Rama was born thousands of years after Krishna. Rama came much before Krishna. I changed the date according to Shrila Rupa Goswami's Laghu-bhagavatamrta. I also posted sources for Shrila Rupa Goswarmi's Laghu-bhagavatamrta below. The exact mention of Rama's birth can be found on page 69 of the first source which is a PDF. I included this for easy and quick access to the information. Even if this information isn't enough to establish a dating, it is still universally known among Hindus that Rama was born in Treta Yuga which would place his birth a tleast one million years if he was born in the current Treta-Yuga. The article says Hindus believe Rama was born in 1450 BC but Hindus believe Ram was born in Treta Yuga not Kali Yuga. Hindus Believe Rama was born before Krishna not 2,000 years after Krishna. This means that even if Rama was born in the most recent Treta Yuga Hindus believe he must have been born at least 1 million years ago. 1450 BC is impossible because that would he was born in Kali-Yuga about 2,000 years after Krishna.

http://www.prabhupada.de/kusakratha/Kusakratha_Laghu-Bhagavatamrita.pdf http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Rupa_Goswami/Laghu-Bhagavatamrta.htm http://www.prabhupada.de/kusakratha.htm

We do not source things from scripture. We source from reliable secondary sources, such as the analysis by historians of historical texts and data. The detail you are changing is sourced. It may not be changed. If you find a reliable secondary source which has a different opinion, you may add that opinion with a citation as to the source of the opinion to the article. If there are multiple notable opinions, we report them all. Yworo (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertions that "We do not source things from scripture. We source from reliable secondary sources, such as the analysis by historians of historical texts and data." is apparently not too correct, especially religious matter. For example, on page Jesus, there are many references directly quoted from the Bible and other scriptures: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2016:16;&version=ESV; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk%201:35;&version=ESV; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk%201:1;&version=ESV; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn.%203:18;&version=ESV; etc.

Please see reference material on just one page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#See_also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Notes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#References, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#External_links, etc. Please desist from applying different parameters for different religious pages..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 06:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in the 21st century BC topic, it states "According to Hindu tradition, lifetime of Rama, the 7th Avatar of Vishnu". Does anyone know the source of this statement? Does anyone know a scholarly estimate for Rama's timeframe? Timing based on yugas obviously does not work. BTW, i have read an interesting observation form a researcher from the early 19th century who stated that all numbers of years from ancient texts had to be divided by at least 1,000 to get the real number, as it was a technique to hide the correct information. Terry Macro (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The historical ref is wrong, rama's birthdate is april 2nd, however it is mistaken for capricorn because the sun itself is in capricorn on april 2nd if that sounds wierd. People have mistaken christs birthday for being on september because the sun was in virgo. The sun has a polar hemisphere and an equatorial turn. Its fairly esoteric. It can be found that from a vantage point of the sun christ's natal chart is infact all in pisces yet they are in libra, pisces, taurus etc via celestia which is fairly accurate for the year 0 bce.

File:Lord-Ram-Wallpaper-6.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Lord-Ram-Wallpaper-6.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes to header[edit]

Ram is the Supreme God in the sects Ramanand Sampradaya (the largest monastic order in south Asia, in which he is the Saguna Brahman) and Sant Mat (in which he is Nirguna Brahman), and is described as such in the scriptures Adhyatma Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas – the latter being one of the most popular scriptures in Hinduism, often called the Bible of northern India in the West. Given this, I believe the header of the article should at least mention these points of view in a sentence in addition to the seventh incarnation of Vishnu. Given these are widely held views (by the largest Sampradaya of Hindus and as per the equivalent of Bible in north India), per WP:DUE they should be included in the header in my opinion. Somebody talked about an ISKCON view which is held by a much smaller number of people and including it would be giving undue weight to a minority view.

I have made a draft of the proposed new introduction under User:Nmisra/1. Please let me know if it looks okay, and suggest changes if it does not. I will make the changes in a week's time if there are no objections. Nmisra (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nmisra's version without references:

Ram, Devanāgarī: राम ; Rām, Vemu ; Burmese: ရာမ Jàm ; Javanese: Ramavijaya ; Khmer: ព្រះរាម Phreah Ream ; Lao: ພຣະຣາມ Phra Ram ; Malay: Megat Seri Ram ; Tamil: ராமர் Ramar; Thai: พระราม Phra Ram )[1] is one of the central figures and symbols in Hinduism.[2] He is the seventh avatar of Vishnu in several Vaishnava and Hindu traditions, and in the Ramayana of Valmiki.[3][4] He is the absolute and supreme God in the Ramananda Sampradaya (the largest monastic order in Hinduism),[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and in the Adhyatma Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas. He was born in Suryavansha (Ikshvaku Vansh) ...

My version replacing the current Para 1 of the lead:

Ram (Sanskrit: राम, IAST: Rām)[1] or Ram Chandr (रामचंद्र, IAST: Rāmcaṇdr) is one of the central figures in Hinduism, specifically Vaishnavism and the protagonist of the Hindu epic Ramayana. He is worshipped as the seventh avatar of Vishnu in several Vaishnava and Hindu traditions, however regarded as the Supreme Being in some Ram-centric traditions. Ram is described as a Suryavanshi king of Ayodhya and regarded as a historical individual by Hindus, who lived on in the last quarter of Treta Yuga. [End of para 1 of lead]

Main points:

Move all non-Sanskrit versions to Etymology sections.
Create section "Worship as Supreme God" or "Ramism" to include details and the references collected. Not in lead --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view: Suggesting material additions to content first. The header as explaining the content can be considered as well. It is an interesting addition. Also Etymology suggestion looks good.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARCHEO-ASTRONOMY[edit]

The information provided in this section is a fringe theory and with no references provided, it should be removed in its entirety. Unless some supporting evidence is provided, I will be deleting this section. Terry Macro (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Datation[edit]

I have moved the following verbiage out of the article and to the Talk page for reworking. It is patent original research, and even if it were not, it is by no means written in an encyclopedic manner. I would also argue it simply rambles on too long and provides too much unnecessary detail. I don't see how the article suffers at all from its removal. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning that the planetary positions mentioned in the Ramayana would also have occurred multiple times in history prior to the calculated date from the planetarium software. Because of a phenomenon known as the 'Precession of Equinoxes', stars as visualized from Earth, regain the same positions every 26,000 years! Hence, this particular permutation of stars could belong to 5114 BCE + 26,000 or 26,000 years before that and so on.
In order to calculate when Lord Rama appeared according to the Vedic Puranas, one must first understand the cycles of time. Listed below are the four Yugas that make up the current cycle of time. One cycle of these Yugas lasts for 4.32 million years and is called a Maha Yuga aka Divya Yuga or Catur Yuga. There have been 28 of these Maha Yugas thus far in this day of Brahma. At the end of every Maha Yuga, Satya Yuga comes again and religious principles are reestablished. [Srimad Bhagavatam 8.14.4, 9.22.18-19] We are currently in Kali Yuga which started at midnight on February 18, 3102 BC after Lord Krishna left for His abode.

Satya Yuga lasts 1,728,000 human years

Treta Yuga lasts 1,296,000 human years

Dvapara Yuga lasts 864,000 human years

Kali Yuga lasts 432,000 human years

All the shastras indicate that Lord Rama appeared in Treta Yuga. Some of the sastras don't identify which Treta Yuga, so we can conclude that the reference is to the 28th Treta Yuga since Vyasa compiled the Vedas in the 28th Dvapara Yuga. Others refer to the 24th Treta Yuga and this is also correct. Lord Rama appears more than once in a day of Lord Brahma to enact His pastimes, sometimes with slight alterations in each, which is why one can find slight variations in the details.

Lord Rama became king during Treta Yuga. [Bhagavata Purana 9.10.51]

Bhagawan Rama appeared at the end of the 24th Treta Yuga. [Matsya Purana 47/240,243-246]

When Ravana's merit of penance began to decline, he met Lord Rama, the son of Dasarath, in a battle wherein Ravana and his followers were killed in the 24th Treta Yuga. [Vayu Purana 70.47-48, published by Motilal Banarsidass]

Rama appeared in the Treta Yuga of the 24th catur-yuga as the son of Kausalya and Dasaratha. [Laghu Bhagavatamrta 1.3.78]

Lord Rama's life in Treta Yuga was for 11,039 years minimum. This can be calculated because we know He was sent to the forest at the age of 25 for 14 years before returning to rule Ayodhya for 11,000 years. There is some evidence indicating a longer appearance, but we will stick with 11,039 years as a rough estimate. "After mother Sita entered the earth, Lord Ramacandra entered His own abode after completing uninterrupted Agnihotra-yajna (sacrifice) for thirteen thousand years." [Srimad Bhagavatam 9.11.18-19]
-- Calculations for Lord Rama's appearance during 28th Treta Yuga (Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali) --
     864,000 years = 28th Dvapara Yuga
+      5,115 years = 28th Kali Yuga as of 2013 since Lord Krishna
----
     869,115 years ago = end of 28th Treta Yuga
+     11,039 years = Lord Rama's life
----
     880,154 years ago = minimum appearance time

   1,296,000 years = 28th Treta Yuga
+    869,115 years ago = end of 28th Treta Yuga
----
   2,165,115 years ago = start of 28th Treta Yuga; maximum appearance time
From the above calculations, we can see that Lord Rama appeared in the 28th Treta Yuga between 880,154 and 2,165,115 (2.17 million) years ago as of 2013.
Lord Rama is also said to have appeared at the end of the 24th Treta Yuga. The end of Treta Yuga or Sesa Sandhyaya can be calculated as being 1/12th the time-span of Treta Yuga. [Caitanya Caritamrta Adi Lila 3.29]
There is evidence to suggest that the natural chronological order of these yugas are Satya, Dvapara, Treta, and Kali, and that, for the 28th Maha Yuga, Treta and Dvapara are switched temporarily for Lord Krishna's appearance. Treta means third and Dvapara means second, so the natural order would be "two" then "three".

During this 28th round of the Maha Yuga, Lord Krishna descended and because of this there was some particular alteration so that Treta comes before Dvapara. [Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.14]

During Satya Yuga, Gautama Maharishi cursed his wife Ahalya to become stone due to her unfaithfulness. After pleading with her husband, he gave her the benediction that Lord Rama will free and cleanse her by the touch of His lotus foot. Ahalya was unhappy with the long wait until the third age (Satya, Dvapara, Treta), so her husband said the Treta Yuga will come next before Dvapara Yuga to speed up her deliverance (Satya, Treta).

Vashistha, born of Brahma's mind, was to assume his father's role of family priest in relation to the Kings of the solar race. Finding him reluctant to accept this position, Brahma tried to persuade him by the argument that the Lord Himself would appear in that line in the Treta Yuga and that he would be the Lord's own family priest and preceptor. According to the order of sequence originally determined, Dvapara (literally, the second Yuga) was to follow Satya and Treta (literally, the third Yuga) was to come next. Vashistha, however, was too impatient to wait for a couple of Yugas and accordingly changed their order of sequence so that it was Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali. [Sri Ramacaritamanasa: Ayodhya-kanda]
-- Calculations for Lord Rama's appearance at the end of the 24th Treta Yuga (Satya, Dvapara, Treta, Kali) --
     432,000 years = 24th Kali Yuga
  12,960,000 years = 25th, 26th, 27th Maha Yugas (3 x 4.32 million years)
   1,728,000 years = 28th Satya Yuga
   1,296,000 years = 28th Treta Yuga
     864,000 years = 28th Dvapara Yuga
+      5,115 years = 28th Kali Yuga as of 2013 since Lord Krishna
----
  17,285,115 years ago = end of 24th Treta Yuga
+     11,039 years = Lord Rama's life
----
  17,296,154 years ago = minimum appearance time

  17,285,115 years ago = end of 24th Treta Yuga
+     72,000 years = Sesa Sandyaya of 24th Treta Yuga (864,000 / 12)
----
  17,357,115 years ago = maximum appearance time
From the above calculations, we can see that Lord Rama also appeared in the 24th Treta Yuga around 17.3 million years ago. If, however, the Dvapara and Treta Yugas are switched temporarily during the 24th Maha Yuga (Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali), then His appearance would be around 18.16 to 18.26 million years ago.
It is also worth mentioning that the Valmiki Ramayana talks about four-tusked elephants which support a timeframe of millions of years. Science tells us that these four-tusked Mastodons became extinct many millions of years ago.

When Hanuman first approached Ravana's palace, he saw the doorways surrounded by horses and chariots, palanquins and aerial cars, beautiful horses and elephants, nay, with four-tusked elephants decked with jewels resembling masses of white clouds. (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara-Kanda (or Book 5), 4.27, [Gita Press, Gorakhpur, India])

An ogress named Trijata has a dream of Lord Rama, which she describes to the other demoniac ogresses upon awakening. In that dream she sees Rama, scion of Raghu, united again with Sita. Sri Rama was mounted on a huge elephant, closely resembling a hill, with four tusks. (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara-Kanda (or Book 5), 27.12)

Nonstopdrivel

These, in which Bladesmulti replaced a good source with wto junk-y ones, were not a good series of edits. Abecedare (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only about the dating, but also the influence one, what was wrong about it? I removed the leading line of the section "influence" because it was written like essay, and not really needed either. Plus 2 sources were added for the information. About dating, more sources:-

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-11-08/india/27204982_1_lord-ram-shri-ram-solar-eclipse

http://books.google.com/books?id=39tW7k_0MI4C&pg=PA16&dq=5114+BCE+rama&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1R11UseDAoizrgfQ9oDgBQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA http://books.google.com/books?id=ROePWIBgyv8C&pg=PA122&dq=5114+BCE+rama&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1R11UseDAoizrgfQ9oDgBQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg

Bladesmulti (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The influence edit was lost in an edit-conflist and was not an intentional revert. Feel free to redo that. (Try to cite complete bibliographical data for the work cited though, including publisher and year)
A ~5000BCE date for a historical Rama is complete WP:FRINGE irrespective of how many astrologers we and the media can cite. But frankly it is a waste of our time. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the content of "historical" dating is based on the calculations, like above user writes, it will be worth mentioning, if there's such section, otherwise we won't even need the "historical period", since Rama is reincarnation, it's already in duration. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting clarification[edit]

Dear Redtigerxyz,

I apologize but I am not clear about why you removed a lot of sourced content from the article ‘Rama’. I am happy to know that this incident has given me an opportunity to learn directly from a very experienced Wikipedian i.e. you. Please take this discussion in a constructive manner and convince me that I was indeed wrong. Could you please list the very specific reasons based on Wikipedia guidelines according to which you think my edits were in violation? I am sorry again to say that I did not expect a learned WPian like you to revert my edits without leaving any justification whatsoever on the article talk page. I have to say your explanation on my talk page is not clear to me – “Please do not literal translations of the Ramcharitmanas in the article and summarize it and explicitly say that it from the Ramcharitmanas. The original Ramayana as well as other adaptations differ from the Ramcharitmanas in many ways. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)” Thank you!

Your friend, Radrianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radrianne (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It violates the principle of WP:UNDUE. The referenced parts are just parts of the detailed translations of the Ramcharitmanas, correct me if wrong. "Chanting of name 'Ram'" are extracts of slokas from the Ramacharitmanas; the quotes in Reasons for Ram's incarnation; this detail is UNDUE. The whole stories should be summarized and merged in the relevant sections.
WP:POV of Ramacharitmanas is forwarded. The Ramayana does not says with a Parvati-Shiva dialogue.
The tone of the article was encyclopaedic; but like the devotee literature of Tulsidas. The article should be written in a neutral way; especially the chanting of the name Ram read like a panegyric. It should be said that Ramacharitamanasa recommends the chanting of the name of Rama and conveys its greatness.
Books like The Story Of Sri Ram By Prem P. Bhalla and Prakash, Ved (2008). Saint Veda Vyasa's the Shiva Purana can not be considered as WP:RS. They are peer-reviewed authors. A sample RS will be Asian Variations in Ramayana by Sahitya Akademi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two main problems are:

I feel that a particular editor is trying to WP:OWN this article.
I feel that I am being prevented from editing this article.

I feel so because every word of my hard work is removed from the article. However since the other editor is highly experienced WPian, I take it as a misunderstanding. I am sorry to say but I feel that none of the reasons given above allow the blatant removal of the sourced content that I added to this article. I will explain why.

Reasons given are:

"It violates the principle of WP:UNDUE. The referenced parts are just parts of the detailed translations of the Ramcharitmanas, correct me if wrong. "Chanting of name 'Ram'" are extracts of slokas from the Ramacharitmanas; the quotes in Reasons for Ram's incarnation; this detail is UNDUE. The whole stories should be summarized and merged in the relevant sections."

WP:RS requires "Citation to reliable sources where necessary". The content is non-contentious and hence does not need an inline citation. Also refer point 1 of WP:RSVETTING. In this case, the inline citations were provided to boost verifiability. "The referenced parts are just parts of the detailed translations of the Ramcharitmanas, correct me if wrong." I’m sorry to say but I feel that you are wrong. Ramcharitmanas is a primary source. I’ve not consulted any primary source. So I’m not sure how WP:UNDUE is applicable here. WP is an encyclopedia based on "reliable secondary sources". Any article on any topic on WP is a survey of RS. So neutrality means covering content as per their weightage in various RS. The content covered in various sections are also covered by many RS (few are cited) under the direct title of "Ram". These are not "stories". It’s a sourced content written in summary style surveyed from various RS. Please feel free to correct me.

" WP:POV of Ramacharitmanas is forwarded. The Ramayana does not says with a Parvati-Shiva dialogue."

Same as above. Both Ramacharitmanas and Ramayana are primary sources. Any discussion based on primary sources would violate WP:NOR.

"The tone of the article was encyclopaedic; but like the devotee literature of Tulsidas. The article should be written in a neutral way; especially the chanting of the name Ram read like a panegyric. It should be said that Ramacharitamanasa recommends the chanting of the name of Rama and conveys its greatness."

Refer Major aspects. It says "All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered" and "The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge" This article is severely short of major aspects. The content I included is covered by many RS. It can be verified using Google. "Chanting of name" is an activity prevalent in almost every home (Hinduism) in India. There temples distribute blank free notebooks for writing "Ram". A reader interested in Hinduism would be curious to know the logic behind this practice. Ramayana is a poem in Sanskrit singing the glory of Lord Ram. All secondary sources based on Ramayana preserve this aesthetic of praise. Likewise all tertiary sources like encyclopedias (WP etc) must preserve the position or tone of the source. As per WP:NPOV the editor on WP must preserve the exact essence of the reliable secondary sources lest it will be OR. Neutrality means not changing the position or tone of the source. It’s reporting the meaning of the source exactly but in different words using a summary style.

"Books like The Story Of Sri Ram By Prem P. Bhalla and Prakash, Ved (2008). Saint Veda Vyasa's the Shiva Purana can not be considered as WP:RS. They are peer-reviewed authors. A sample RS will be Asian Variations in Ramayana by Sahitya Akademi."

Same as above. The content is non-contentious and hence does not strictly needs WP:MINREF. I also disagree that they are not RS. Moreover how does this justify removal of the entire content?

I’m a professor in a very reputed university of US. My field of work is Languages and religions in Asia. I’ve devoted my entire life researching these topics. My aim is to improve articles on Hinduism. There are many articles languishing without even the minimal attention. Lets not waste our time on only one article.

Redtigerxyz, I’m very happy that we are having this discussion here. I’ve utmost respect for you because you are a veteran WPian. All the words that I have written in reply are gentle, polite, friendly and full of love. If unintentionally there is any mistake from my side and you find me rude. I confess I have no such intention. Kind regards from your friend --Radrianne (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Radrianne, I don't OWN this article, I don't even edit this article much and hardly have any attachment to it. All sections in "Reasons for Ram's incarnation" (Besides Curse on Pratapbhanu, which I could not understand how it related to Rama; the story seems incomplete) were summarized (deleting the WP:UNDUE details) in the "Avatar" section by me. [8] The whole "Parvati-Shiva dialogue" is a version only in the Ramacharitmanas and does not appear in the original Ramayana. The critical edition of Ramayana Goldman, Robert P. (2007). The Ramayana Of Valmiki: Balakanda. The Ramayana Of Valmiki: An Epic Of Ancient India series (the book has a summarized account of the story followed by the translation and commentary) does not have it. The whole " Parvati said to Shiva, "You have cleared all my doubts. Now I have understood the true nature of Ram. But for what reason did he assume a human form?" Shiva then narrated the pure auspicious story of Ram (the Ramayana or the Ramcharitmanas)" is WP:OR and is based on the Poddar book, which is a translation-cum-commentary on the Ramcharitmanas and the katha Morari Bapu, which is also based on Ramcharitmanas. The "Chanting of name 'Ram'" is heavily based on the Poddar book which incorporates translation of a verse of greatness of Rama's son from the Ramcharitmanas. Then there are sermons by Morari Bapu and Swami Vishwananda on greatness on Rama's name. The tone of all the three paragraphs is non-WP:NEUTRAL. The Hindu belief is stated as History in Parvati-Shiva dialogue and Reasons for Ram's incarnation. e.g. "Shiva first created the characterization of Ram which he narrated to Parvati" should be neutrally written as "As per the Ramacharitmanas, Shiva first created the characterization of Ram which he narrated to Parvati". The tone Chanting of name 'Ram' is devotional literature of us, Hindus. We believe chanting Rama's name is holy; but can't include a panegyric here. We need to write e.g. "Chanting Rama's name is believed by Hindus to be absolve one of all sins." I have invited participants from WP:INDIA for a third-opinion. If we get none, we will approach the WP:RFC route. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Radrianne: and @Redtigerxyz:. Sorry for not replying here as I was away from WP for few days. I suppose the RFC is unneeded here but if editors cooperate, a full rewrite would surely help. Speaking in general, the Hindu mythological character articles should all be revamped and restructured. They tend to mix multiple sources, traditional and contemporary, as well as mainstream and fringe theories, to give a complex look. Last year, along with @Abecedare:, we revamped the article Karna as it was being a pet article to add anything; although the work over there is not fully done. I suppose all such articles need to separate out the main stories, variant stories, and analysis parts. Of course, with characters of longer storylines the article becomes lengthy; but that’s how it should be. In our case of Rama, the article should after lead flow thus; (1) Name, etymology, source of character etc. (2) Story as narrated in Ramayana (3) Major story variations in other traditional sources like Ramacharitramanas or South-Indian traditions, Thai traditions, etc. (4) Character analysis made by traditional and contemporary scholars, this can include comparisons with Hindu/non-Hindu characters, (5) Worship, Influences in culture, status in other religions, etc.
This is just a suggestion on how the structure should be. Feel free to add/change it more. Also, we need to restrict the storyline to included only major events. Various trivial aspects creep in and make the article very lengthy and boring for reading. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is about three newly added sections: "Chanting of name 'Ram'", "Parvati-Shiva dialogue" and "Reasons for Ram avatar". The issues are:

Is the tone of the sections encyclopedic and WP:NEUTRAL?
Is it WP:UNDUE and should it be summarized?
Does the text reflect mainstream views or is it restricted primarily to one text RamacharitamanasaRedtigerxyz ^Talk 18:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Redtigerxyz, sorry for late reply. I checked this page just now. The issues (as I see it) are:

This article is about Ram. For a reader to understand Ram clearly and comprehensively, all the significant aspects about Ram must be covered, be it from Ramayana or Ramcharitmanas or somewhere else shouldn't matter. Is my approach correct?
Is there a set format or template that every article on Religion must follow like Etymology, etc.?

Now, where do I differ from Redtigerxyz:

Is the tone of the sections encyclopedic and WP:NEUTRAL?

It's a valid question; I feel it is.

Is it WP:UNDUE and should it be summarized?

In this my main point of contention is how can we base our discussion entirely on primary sources when this article is about Ram and not about the either primary source? If an aspect about Ram is covered by a secondary RS based on Ramcharitmanas, then it should be covered in the article irrespective of whether it is covered by any other source or not. Moreover I don't think this article is complete (it's rated as C class). When we don't know what other aspects in total are there, how can we judge DUE or UNDUE now. For instance, a lead is written only at the end and not in parallel because only then we know what to summarize. Here we don't know what aspects in total would make the article complete.

Does the text reflect mainstream views or is it restricted primarily to one text Ramacharitamanasa

Same as above. The article is just begun as per my opinion. What I regret the most is the haste. Even for a GA article to be assessed, the process takes about 5-6 months. --Radrianne (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dharmadhyaksha: and @Redtigerxyz:. I consulted one editor and it seems I was wrong all along. Sorry! I'm reverting the article to the last stable version. Thanks for your time. --Radrianne (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar questions[edit]

I have questions about two sections of paragraph 2:

The phenomenon of an avatar is observed in Hinduism, Ayyavazhi, and Sikhism.

These faiths describe multiple avatars (divine incarnations). So rather than "an avatar" (in religion, characteristically implying a generic reference to a unique occurrence, as "the phenomenon of a divine birth" in Christianity), shouldn't this say "The phenomena of avatars..." (plural) or "The phenomenon of the avatar..." (as one would say "The diamond is a form of carbon") ?

Avatar is regarded as one of the core principles of Hinduism.

Similarly, shouldn't this be "The avatar..." (describing a principle) ?
I haven't presumed to make any of these changes, as there are others here with much greater knowledge of the topic. – AndyFielding (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rama worship[edit]

When did the worship of Rama begin ? How old is the oldest Rama temple in India or for that matter in Southeast Asia ?Jonathansammy (talk)

As long as we're discussing this, is the standard spelling Sri Ram or Sriram ? (If both are used, perhaps it would be a good idea to agree on a consistent one.) – AndyFielding (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been Sriram. Thanks for pointing outJonathansammy (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuldevata[edit]

Are there any instances where Rama is worshipped as the family deity ( Kuldevata) ?Jonathansammy (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puranic Claims of Date of Lord Ramachandra's appearance[edit]

I know the issue has been raised about the date of Lord Rama's birth. The other authors were trying to make a point of historical truth. I am not. The point should be made in this article that the Puranas state that Lord Rama appeared in the 24th yuga cycle. As your other article states, the puranic estimate of our current date is in the 28th yuga cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time#The_current_date

There are 2 specific sources for the Lord Rama's appearance in the 24th yuga cycle:

Vayu Purana (70.47-48), Matsya Purana (47/240,243-246)

Amalag (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Rajya[edit]

Can anyone make sense of the first paragraph of the 'Rama Rajya' section? The first few sentences are fine, but then we get a long string of capitalised words in ungrammatical sentences, and I really can't work out the meaning. The section I have a problem with is:

"Rama’s birthday is Celebrated as Rama Navami (On Chaitra Shukla Navami, Punarvasu Nakshatra fourth Pada) as Rama Born On that Day. Rama Navami is also the Same Day as the Day Of Killing Demon Ravana and Successfully Returning Victorious Rama to Ayodhya With Sita, Lakshmana, Hanuma, Sugriva, Jambavantha, Angadha etc., from Completing his Exile Period and then Rama's Coronation(Saamraajya Pattabhisekham) Ceremony took Place on the Following Day or very Next Day when returned from Exile On Chaitra Shukla Dasami, Pushya Constellation (Chaitra Shukla Dasami, Pushyami Constellation, the same Muhurtha kept for Rama’s Coronation which is given by Dasaratha and Vasista before Rama’s 14 years of Exile, Padhuka Pattabhisekham [happened before Rama completing his exile time] done by Rama’s brother Bharatha, when then Ayodhya is ruled by his Padhuka or Rama shoes till the end of 14 years exile time period of Rama returning Ayodhya) which is on Darmaraja Dasami day after Rama Navami day, Lord Rama and his virtues besides, his popular regime ‘Rama Raajyam' to mark DharmaRaja Dashami as part of Sri RamaNavami as 'Ramo Vigrahavan Dharmah' Which Means Rama is The Embodiment Of Dharma Or Dharma has taken a form of Ramachandrah , It is the Happiest and Unforgettable Day to Every Hindu."

I suspect that last claim - "It is the Happiest and Unforgettable Day to Every Hindu" - is a highly subjective judgement too - 'the happiest day' for 'every Hindu'? I don't know anywhere near enough to rewrite this myself, but at the moment, I can't really see how anyone can learn anything by reading this. Can anyone help?

Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ravana as Rakshasas[edit]

In the article it is repeatedly mentioned that the king Ravana as a Rakshasas. The fact is Ravana was never a Rakshasa but a Brahmin. People out of ignorance called him a Rakshasa. Though in some scriptures Ravana is called a person of "Rakshasa charcter" or simply "evil character" because he kidnapped someone else's wife . But it does not make him a Rakshasas. Rakshasas are demonic beings and maneaters. I am deleting content saying Ravana as a Rakshasa Rotor37 (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Ravana was, but I am sure that "Rakshasa" is a contentious WP:LABEL. We should not be using willy-nilly. I support the clean-up. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This strange assertion that Ravana was never a Rakshasa goes against all known scholarshipand is WP:OR. Survey of some encylopedias (opening definitions of Ravana):

Puranic encyclopedia by Vettam Mani p. 645: "The Raksasa King of Lanka who had ten heads"
Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions p. 909: "... wealthy, demonic (raksasa) king"
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism by James G. Lochtefeld p. 568: "Ravana is the ten headed demon king of Lanka"
Encyclopedia of Hinduism by Constance A. Jones and James D. Ryan p. 394: "the demon king Ravana"
Epic Mythology By Edward Washburn Hopkins pp. 39-41: Describes Ravana in Rakshasa section.

Translations of the epics:

Critical edition of Ramayana Glossary p. 547: "the ten-headed overlord of the raksasas" + [9] - numerously referred to as rakshasa.
The Mahabharata [10]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Ravana was born of a Brahmana father (Rishi Vishravas) and a Rakshashaa mother (Kekasi), but he was also indeed the King of Rakshashaas. I don't know what to make of Ravana's Varna. Ravana calls himself 'rakSo gaNa iishvaraH' (Lord of Rakshasha) in Valmiki Ramayana-3-47-26. Also, Vishwamirta uses the phrase 'raavaNo naama raakSasaH' (Rakshasaa named Ravana) in Valmiki Ramayana-1-20-16. Crawford88 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I propose to merge Rama in Jainism into this article since both talks about the same person. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Maybe a link in main Rama article as {{main article}} template. The person may be same, but the narratives are different. Crawford88 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rama article is already very long and its inclusion will make it much longer. The Rama in Jainism clearly focuses on Ramas depictions in Jain works.--Nizil (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The words above the infobox picture[edit]

They seem a bit vague to me, could they be changed to something more concise like in Shiva or Lakshmi? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are his (Rama's) honorifics. Crawford88 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Ok, if that´s so (I didn´t find anything expanded on or mentioned about these honorifics in the body of article, but maybe I missed it), maybe put "Honorifics:" above them? "Morality" and "Virtue" don´t sound exactly like honorifics, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying.. The thing is Rama is often also called, मर्यादा-पुरुशोत्तम् (maryAdA-purushottam; lit. 'Exemplar of propriety' also see Purushottama). But I do agree that other things written there are irrelevant. Infact, the words come under the key 'deity_of', which IMHO is not correct. Crawford88 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reference of Ram date of birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.223.50 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken url and unexplained edits[edit]

@Siddhesh10star: These repetitive edits are disruptive as they ignore WP:V and MOS guidelines. You also changed the link to the wrong url, when the original url was this correct. Please explain your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am a Hindu and merely request permission to edit the photo of this most iconic idol. Thank you. Soni Studios (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rama. 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/20090407015100/http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990325/ige25105.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990325/ige25105.html

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) 22:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Literary Sources section, and Ramayana subsection, please change "Ramayana Kalpavruksham by Viswanatha Satyanarayana and Ramayana by Ranganatha in Telugu" to "Ramayanam by Molla, Ramayana Kalpavruksham by Viswanatha Satyanarayana and Ramayana by Ranganatha in Telugu". Molla is the first person to translate Ramayanam from Sanskrit to Telugu. She is the also one of the few notable Telugu poets from medieval India. Kaliavinash (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Bharat son of Kaikeyi was born in palace of Kosala and Why Ram son of Kaushalya was born in road side Temple in Ayodhya, in presences of pujaris ? If Dahsrath has two wives He was Muslim, because went against books of Hinduism Vedas, Upanishades. Why Hinduism the nameless religion is confused in itself ??

A Big Question Why Kaushalaya was deserted in Mandirs at time trouble and time of giving birth of Ram ?? Is it Kaushalya was not his legal wife and Ram not a legal son ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan11 in (talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

(1) Ayodhya Ram Paidi Uttar Pradesh India 2013.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ram[edit]

How is Gautam Buddha an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Raymondjohn1234 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Line 2 - "He is the seventh avatar of the god Vishnu, one of his most popular incarnations along with Krishna and Gautama Buddha." changed to-> "He is the seventh avatar of the god Vishnu, one of his most popular Avatars along with Krishna and Gautama Buddha (in some traditions)."

Here, i would like to make two distinctions: 1. That he is an "Avatar" of Vishnu and not use the word incarnation, which the wikipedia article on Avatar makes ample clarifications w.r.t christian ideas of incarnation and English-Sanskrit linguistic differences. 2. Gautama Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is not a universal phenomenon and causes theological implausiblity in Hindu tradition. Can be inferred within the same article. Its mainly so in some populist Vaishnava sects of regional Gurus in the historical Gauda region (in eastern India) adjacent to Buddha's core geography of teachings. Vidyashishu (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article to which you refer states in its lead paragraph that an Avatar "..., is the material appearance or incarnation of a deity on earth." It seems acceptable to therefore use the same terminology in this article's lead. This does not mean that the distinctions you mention do not belong in the article. Indeed, the body of the article goes into some detail about the various faith traditions which venerate Rama and the differences in their positions. This is exactly where such discussion belongs. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information in section- legend.[edit]

In section- legend some one wrote that Ravan kidnapped Sita and he wants to make her his concubine. It's completely wrong. According to Valmiki Ramayan Ravan wants to Sita his Queen. Then why some one her spreading wrong information. I suggest to delete it and write authentic information that Ravan wants to make Sita his Queen. Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable seconday sources for any changes you wish to see in the article. Merely asserting that something is wrong is insufficient. --regentspark (comment) 18:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the title from Ram to Shri Ram as he deserves and it suites also to him. It's a pure request. Utkarsh9936 (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please change it. Utkarsh9936 (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wikipedia articles should not contain honorifics – see this information. --bonadea contributions talk 10:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no information about "Ram Janmabhoomi" as born site as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi 179.93.188.9 (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Why has the normal English name "Rama" been changed to "Ram" in the article title? That flies in the face of English usage, as far as I know. English is not the same as Hindi or Sanskrit, after all. Zaslav (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't change Ram's name Rama or write it the way westerners do.Shi Ram was from India and the most authentic way of writing, pronouncing Ram's name the way India's do.we write God Ram's name as Ram. Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is Rama in Sanskrit and pronounced as in hare rama hare rama, rama rama hare hare. Nittawinoda (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Ram and Rama are justifiable, and commonly used English transliterations. See Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages for a discussion of the underlying issue. Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetical usage on local language needs to be adhered to. Rama is not the correct pronunciation for the Indian Name "Ram". Jigar.kansara (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ram Lalla" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ram Lalla. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Ram Lalla until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12 § Ram Lalla, please contribute to the discussion there. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit for Rama page[edit]

The meaning of the Sanskrit ‘Rama’ is ‘He who gives pleasure to those who love Him.’ I came across this knowledge in the Rg Vedas, which I have studied all my life. I can’t remember which one but it is common knowledge in the Vaishnava community. I would appreciate it if you can include this knowledge in your summary of Rama. Laksmanharibol (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pls provide the sources. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested detail edit for Rama page[edit]

Buddha is not the widely accepted 10th Avatar. I and none of my one billion fellow Hindus accept Buddha as the peaceful 10th Avatar, who slayed no demon. The 10th Avatar is going to be Kalki, who will appear at the end of Kali Yuga and finish the demon named Kali, who is responsible for every evil that exists/existed. Editors at Wikipedia are suggested to fix this point. Buddha was Gautam Siddharth, who refuted the existence of any supreme power. Buddhism is documented as an atheist set of rules laid down for the convenience of some people, who like the A-Brahmik people did not want to complicate life by thinking about the supernatural Powers.

P.S.: You can look for references on the internet. I just told what the popular opinion is. Do not let Wikipedia become a communist-stronghold. TheAtulKaushal (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Various Hindu scriptures including various Puranas regard Buddha as the 9th avatar, not the 10th avatar. Gautama Buddha in Hinduism covers the topic in detail. You can provide reliable references to prove that Buddha is not regarded an avatar, "as per popular opinion". A summary of reliable references in Dashavatara#cite_note-Buddha-6 contradicts with your suggestion about your popular opinion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Can anyone change the image to a more accurate one. The current image doesn’t make justice to appearance of Rama as it is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana. Rama was of dark complexion. The image currently used is something that appears on political posters. Such images are not of encyclopaedic standards. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on the popular image of the deity. Like Vishnu and Krishna, Rama is generally portrayed with blue skin. .245CMR.•^👥📜 12:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

I have removed the birth date from Infobox as it is controversial and should be added in the dating section. Also, this article is mainly about the deity aspect of Rama rather than historical one. Other users, please add your opinions..245CMR.•^👥📜 11:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rama's succesor was Kuśa not Lava 27.123.137.242 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Rama and the ocean.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I was about to notify this page about this matter, but see it has already been done a month ago. If anyone knows about the source or artist of File:Rama and the ocean.jpg, that information would be helpful. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

About lord Rama history 2401:4900:61AF:DD8C:4E4:7DDA:12AA:39BC (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the died heading[edit]

When we refer to Sri Rama , as per Hindu mythology it appears sensitive to say 'Rama died'. Since it is mentioned that Rama is avatar of Sri Maha Vishnu, and Sri Vishnu is immortal, better it is to mention as Avatar end rather than Rana Died. I request Wikipedia authorities to correct this title in article 103.57.133.51 (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity[edit]

I want to request any experienced editor here to consider adding a section about the subject's historicty. There is new show coming up on Discovery Plus about this, which I think will increase the number of people that may be interested in such a section. Appu (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Cast[edit]

What is the cast of Lord rama? Hindu Bramhan? Please provide detail info. 2409:4042:4D3C:FACF:1FCA:57B:A736:B0B3 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, you may refer to WP:Reference Desk for the question. BTW, he was a Kshtriya rather than a Brahmin, since his father was a Kshtriya. This was the reason why his father refused the daughter Shanta's marriage with Rishyasringa as it would become an intercaste marriage, which was unacceptable then. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dasaratha didn't have anything to do with his daughter's marriage. Why? Because he had given her to his friend Romapada King of Vanga as an adoptive daughter. And it was Romapada who got the two married. And it was Rishyasringa who performed the ceremony so that Dasaratha would get sons. Marriage between Brahmins and Kshatriya was more common than you say and many examples can be thought of: Agastya with Lopamudra, and Kardama with Devahuti come to mind. More could easily be found. 24.139.24.163 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022[edit]

This edit request to Sikh doesn't have any faith or believe on Hindu Rama. Sikhi believe on one God and they use Ram name for One Divine God. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.181.56.63 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It is unclear what change you want to make in the article. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation is wrong[edit]

The recorded pronunciation of Rāma is the Hindi pronunciation, not the proper Sanskrit pronunciation. In Hindi ending vowels are elided, thus Rāma becomes Rām.24.139.24.163 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It is pronounced as 'Raam' not as 'Raama' as indicated in the pronunciation guide. Recommend deleting the audio until a new pronunciation is uploaded. rams81 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add reference to new movie about Rama?[edit]

There is a new Indian movie, Adipurush out about Rama's life, now playing in the US. Maybe add it to to the list of cultural impacts? 70.18.232.112 (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change rama to ram as ram is the proper name written in ancient holi books. 81.98.42.253 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this may help why rama and not ram - Schwa deletion in Indian languages#:~:text=Conjuncts in Sanskrit loanwords always,x̩ikˈkʰitɒ/ and /xˌikˈkʰit/. Asteramellus (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:1C0:4600:38B0:2958:2B65:7C97:E00D (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rama sibling Sister Shanta

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. Lightoil (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023[edit]

This edit request to Rama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

RosesBlossom (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!I resquest an edit permission for Rāmā page,cause over there Successor is mentioned as Lava where in fact his successor was Kusha-His elder son.

I hope this will be corrected soon.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Ramachandra" to "Rama" in the first word.[edit]

Change "Ramachandra" to "Rama" to the first word of the article (and list Ramachandra as an alternate name) because it is stated that Rama is his birth name and Ramachandra is a name he earned. This is in the beginning of the Ramayana.

Here in the Sanskrit text in various places it says Raamam [11]https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga1/bala_1_frame.htm DevPandey27 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DevPandey27 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]