Talk:Shambuka

Caste system vs. jati

I removed reference to "Hindu caste system" because during the time of Shri Rama, there was no such thing as Hinduism or what is today understood as the "caste system" and replaced it with the more appropriate term "jati."

I also removed external links to the main pages of Dalit websites as they had nothing to say about Shambuka and the Ramayana. There are more appropriate areas of WP for exhibiting the Dalit cause.

I also added a bunch of tags indicating references were needed, and added the overall NPOV banner at the top because the article still seems lopsided.

Comments/edits welcome

Rubber soul

Unlikely Story

The article had a section titled "Unlikely Story" added by User:Goldenhawk 0 who was later banned for injecting unsourced and synthesised Hindu POV into articles. The text of the section itself plainly violates most of Wikipedia's content policies, but unfortunately my attempt to remove it was reverted. I've merged it into the next section, where it is more appropriate, and added a tag saying it violates Wikipedia's policies. It's funny that I'm not allowed to simply remove it, but there you go. -- 144.32.126.14 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is a great place for Bramhinical systems

It shows the views of only Bramhins and a disgrace to research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.219.113 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to the public for good reason. If you disagree with the stated content, please go ahead and revise the article as needed. Avindratalk 19:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If it was like that libtard? Then why would Wikipedia be open to public 950CMR (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@950CMR: Commuting the ad hominem, I don't understand what you need. Please clarify. Thanks. Avindratalk 02:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shambuka. 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/20061107163101/http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/nasik/005%20History/001%20AncientPeriod.htm to http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/gazetteer/nasik/005%20History/001%20AncientPeriod.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Reporting the removal of content and academic references to push a POV

Most of the referenced scholarly sources on the wiki page till date removed in one go by the editor Wareon, apparently to push a narrative with one-sided point of view. The editor hasn't provided a clear reason for removal of references including but not limited to, The Raghuvaṃśa of Kalidasa, 'Perumal Thirumozhi' in Naalayira Divya Prabandham, and Uttararamacarita by Bhavabhuti.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shambuka&type=revision&diff=985458188&oldid=985293433

The editor wants to claim this incident an interpolation yet doesn't cite any academic source in which scholar/researcher says it's an interpolation, or state the period during which interpolation happened. Even if it is established, this 'interpolation' theory can be one of the views but not 'the sole view', unless there is evidence to categorically disregard all the relevant academic works by other authors.

That will be more constructive than removing all references which don't align with editor's point of view, and threatening other editors of 'blocking from editing' so as to reinstate own point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phule lulu (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Edits by  Phule lulu

I have reverted edits by  Phule lulu, because of his misrepresentation of sources and addition of unreliable sources for justifying what is essentially WP:FRINGE. Patridge publishing, Shanti Sadan are all self-published and unreliable sources. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning later interpolation as an opinion rather than fact

The edit [1] made by Wareon violate WP:OR and WP:FICTREF guidelines. The source mentions that "Most scholars view it as an interpolation". It doesn't presents it as a fact and only mentions about the view of the scholars whereas by saying "Shambuka is an interpolation in Ramayana", Wareon is trying to present it as a fact rather than view of scholars. WP:NPOV policy clearly says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". So, other than WP:OR and WP:FICTREF, his edit is also a violation WP:NPOV policy. My edit was neutral in the sense that it mentioned the interpolation point but presented it as a opinion of most scholars rather than a fact. I tried on discuss this point on his talk page as well but he is repeatedly indulging in the same disruptive behaviour again and again. So, I had added this section to reach to a consensus. For now, I would be reverting his edit. Jasksingh (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We have been over this aren't we? Pretending that you are not hearing what you have been already told is only going to make your case worse. Let me copy paste my earlier comment here too:

The majority view of "scholars" is treated as a fact on Wikipedia. Since scholarly sources are of highest quality.

But if you are still finding it difficult to understand then read this: "by now, it can be confirmly said the 'Uttarkand' of Ramayana is an interpolation of quite later period"[2]

So why we shouldn't treat it as a 'fact'?

You need to read WP:STICK. Wareon (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

At that time also, I had asked you to produce any wikipedia guideline which says that "view of many scholars" can be presented as a fact on wikipedia. But, you had failed to do at that time also and have failed to do so this time also. Until you prove your point by giving reference of any wikipedia guideline, your point is not proven. Also, the previous discussion was on yours and mine talk page so it was important to have a discussion on the article's talk page as well to try to reach to a consensus. The source [3] clearly mentions it as an opinion of most scholars rather than a fact. So, we should mention it in the similar way otherwise it violates WP:OR guideline. Jasksingh (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wareon has reverted my edit again [4] claiming that I haven't shown him any scholar disagreeing that it is an interpolation. He is again missing the main point. The main point is that if source cited uses the words "opinion of most scholars" then as per WP:OR, one can't change the meaning of what the source is trying to convey. One can only rephrase to avoid copyright violation. But, by trying to present it as a fact rather than opinion, he is effectively changing meaning of sentence. In any case, his claim that no scholar disagrees that it is an interpolation is also not correct because of following two reasons:

1. In his work Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar points out this story while criticizing Chaturvarnya [5] [6] [7]. Nowhere, he mentions that he sees this story as an interpolation. Infact, he says that Rama by killing Shambuka did what he was expected to do as part of Chaturvarnya i.e. to punish a Shudra who tries to transgress his caste. So, he believes that the story is true and Rama indeed killed Shambuka. These sources are already present in the article.
2. The source [8] says and I quote "whether it dates from Valmiki's time or somewhat later". It clearly means that even the source is not sure about whether it is an interpolation or not. It is just mentioning opinion of most scholars and not stating a fact. Jasksingh (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This is just a comment but new New scholars after Ambedkar considered it as interpolation.WP:OLDSOURCES Richman is referring to the time of interpolation (whether it was added during Valmiki's time or somewhat later). However it is better to keep it neutral tone. Regards, I may not further participate..245CMR.•^👥📜 14:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:245CMR Thanks for your comment. Firstly, WP:OLDSOURCES is especially relevant for scientific and academic fields. If we apply it here then even Tagore's and Gandhi's interpretation (that it is an interpolation) may get superseded by Ambedkar's interpretation because Ambedkar may have written about it after Tagore and Gandhi (not 100% sure though). Secondly, according to me, by mentioning the time, Richman is trying to convey whether it is an interpolation or not i.e. whether it exists from Valmiki's time or whether it was added later. Thirdly, I gave reference of three books above - one written by Ambedkar himself and two books written by other authors. The other two authors seems to agree with Ambedkar's interpretation that it is not an interpolation. So, even if we apply WP:OLDSOURCES, there are recent sources which seems to agree with Ambedkar that it is not an interpolation. Jasksingh (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Wareon. Can you please confirm if you still have any objection to mentioning it as opinion of most scholars rather than a fact? I have tried addressing all your objections and I assume we should be nearing a consensus now. Jasksingh (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would rather wait for scholarly consensus to change first, which seems impossible. WP:OLDSOURCES is irrelevant and is being misrepresented because politician Ambedkar was not a reliable source even in 1950s. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You are repeating the same point which has already been discussed above. We don't need to change the view of scholars. We need to mention it in the same way as the source mentions it to comply with wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Regarding Ambedkar, so any scholar who doesn't agrees with you becomes unreliable? Can you prove how is Gandhi and Tagore are more reliable on this subject than Ambedkar? Jasksingh (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ambedkar was supporting a position deemed by scholars and non-scholars as false and misleading. Tagore and Gandhi are not reliable sources but at least stand on the correct side of the dispute. You need to be less desperate about this subject. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So, you have already decided that Ambedkar's view is false and misleading? You view interpolation as a fact whereas I view it as opinion of most scholars (in the similar way source mentions it). That's the main difference. In any case, thanks for the link. I think the point "When you think there is a policy violation" is relevant and the solution suggested is Dispute resolution. I would go for that solution as same older points are being discussed again and again now. Jasksingh (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional references to other versions needed

For one, I can add that the Shambuka story occurs in the third edition (1992) of Valmiki Ramayana from Gita Press. I cannot find a copy of it in the Internet Archive, but I will add this to the article sometime soon. Please help to add additional references to other translations, if you are aware of any.

Currently, the Hari Prasad translation is the only known entry, which I never heard of until I saw Richard Stallman's blog post about it:

https://stallman.org/articles/ramayana.html

Avindratalk 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Bullying by editors of Wikipedia

They are openly insulting my religion .Help !!! Ss125 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead changes

@117.99.104.99, you had reverted my changes to lead commenting that it's vandalism. Can you elaborate on why you think so? What I did was rephrase the lead, because instead of starting the lead with the statement that the subject is an interpolation, it's better to first establish what the subject even refers to. The information that this is believed to be an interpolation is mentioned anyway in second paragraph and it has not been removed. Abhinav Yd (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Abhinav. For being WP:NEUTRAL, let us start with the facts. Starting with "interpolation" is POV pushing. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If you really know what "facts" actually mean, then you would need to first accept that this is an interpolation because it is a later addition to Ramayana as accepted by scholars.

Describing this as a "Shudra ascetic" from the beginning of the article gives the false impression that Wikipedia is trying to provide historicity to a subject that is just interpolation. Wareon (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It is in fact violation of WP:NPOV to whitewash an interpolation per WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We cannot treat this subject as a legitimate character of Ramayana but only as a interpolation to Balmiki Ramayana.

PV Kane is an eminent scholar of Sanskrit text, he calls it a "work of later interpolation" and does not find in the original Balmiki Ramanya. This scholarly source further says "Interpolation was done at a time when varna system deteriorated and got established on the basis of birth in a rigid form."[9]

NM Chakravarthy, another scholar, also notes that "Uttara Kanda" has many interpolations and the incident of the beheading of Shambuka by Rama — one such interpolation — is wholly untenable".[10]

These scholarly sources are not even cited in the main article.

@Abhinav Yd:,, instead of edit warring, review the discussion on the above section. Unless any of you can find scholarly consensus to treat this subject as authentic, you need to maintain status quo. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@ArvindPalaskar In the revision you reverted, the information that this story is an interpolation was not removed at all from the lead. Second paragraph clearly mentions "This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana." So the discussion you linked and these quotes are not relevant for my edit. I do not understand how WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL is applicable here, I did not make any new claim in the lead.

It is a fact that the story of Shambuka appears in the Uttar Kand section of Ramayana, as per [11][12]. Which is the reason this subject is notable and why these scholars are making observations on it. Now the fact that this story is an interpolation is also an information that should be mentioned in the lead if there is consensus among the scholars, which I don't disagree with, and so I did not remove it from the lead.

The purpose of my edit was to improve the opening statement and remove the redundancy. As of now, the information that this story is interpolation is mentioned twice in the lead. It appears that lead is trying to overwhelm the user with the information that the subject is an interpolation. Instead of first defining the subject, it starts with a secondary fact about the subject that it is an interpolation to the text. I also don't agree that mentioning that "Shambuka is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttar Kanda section of Valmiki Ramayana" giving false information about anything, it is a fact. It defines the subject and reason for notability.

And again since the information that this is an interpolation was not removed, I don't think these changes are "whitewashing an interpolation" (You make it sound like some crime is being commited by even saying name of Shambuka without first mentioning that it is an interpolation. But same is the case with most Hindu texts, for example as per a quote in Matsya Purana article "no Purana has a single date of composition. (...) It is as if they were libraries to which new volumes have been continuously added", doesn't mean that starting sentence about each Puranic entity should call it an interpolation.)

Also note that I also mentioned in first section that this story is mentioned in the Uttar Kanda section, most references that say, this story is an interpolation, also say Uttar Kanda is full of such interpolations, so the first sentence of the new lead already gives the information that this story is from highly interpolated part of the Ramayana.

So basically I don't think any status quo is being changed and my changes are valid. Abhinav Yd (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Read:

"The Gyuwon Sahwa (규원사화) is a forged text from the early twentieth century," see Gyuwon Sahwa.

"Protocols of the Elders of Zion... is a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan," see The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

"The drop bear (sometimes dropbear) is a hoax in contemporary Australian folklore," see Drop bear.

It is less important to note that Shambuka "is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda section of the Valmiki Ramayana," than the fact that Shambuka "is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana". The article has to make it clear from the first sentence just like it happens elsewhere. Wareon (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wareon The story of Shambuka is not being spread by some fringe group. It is part of the mainstream Ramayana available to us today, which was maintained by Brahmins themselves. Neither is Ramayana a historical text, it is a religious text; saying that Shambuka is mentioned in Ramayana, does not tell reader anything about some historical fact; Ramayana itself is comparable to a folklore like in third example (or a hoax depending on your religion or lack thereof). Shambuka is an interpolation to the Ramayana, in same way how Mandala 1 and Mandala 10 of Rig Veda are interpolation to Rig Veda, and Purusha Sukta is interpolation to Mandala 10 of Rig Veda, and how Manusmriti is highly interpolated text. and how Uttara Kanda itself is interpolation to Ramayana. But in none of these cases, the interpolation is being brought up in first sentences; rather the subject is being defined first. Abhinav Yd (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to be accepting that it is actually about treating this "subject as a legitimate character of Ramayana". You are wrong yet another time when you said "Shambuka is not being spread by some fringe group". Just because there is a religious text, it doesn't mean it becomes comparable to a hoax as it depends largely over the circumstances. Nobody disagrees with the fact that Purusha Sukta and Manusmriti were modified in the later period just like nobody denies that Bible and Hadiths have many later additions but there are number of desparate fringe groups who really want people to believe that Shambuka was an outright historical person in order to strengthen their political agenda.[13] Purusha Sukta page now state it is an interpolation. Thanks for bringing it to attention. Nevertheless, you confused my message regarding how we write the lead sentence of similar subjects with particular dicussion about religious subjects in general. Read WP:NOTAFORUM and understand that repeating yourself won't help. Wareon (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Let me quote both leads, following is the current lead:

Shambuka is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana. According to the story, Shambuka, a shudra ascetic, was killed by Rama for attempting to perform tapas in violation of dharma, the bad karma resulting from which caused the death of a Brahmin's son.

This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana, being created at a later period in opposition to Brahmins. It is found in the Uttara Kanda, which is the final section of the text.

Following is the lead after my change:

Shambuka is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda section of the Valmiki Ramayana. According to the story, Shambuka was killed by Rama for attempting to perform tapas in violation of dharma, the bad karma resulting from which caused the death of a Brahmin's son.

This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana, being created at a later period in opposition to Brahmins.

My changes to the lead are simple to understand, I saw following issues with the current lead:

1. First sentence of the lead should give a definition of the subject as per MOS:FIRST. This was not the case with current lead

2. The current Lead contains redundant information, first sentence mentions Shambuka is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana, and the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead also mentions This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana

To resolve this, I moved last sentence of the second paragraph and the description of character in second sentence to the first sentence in order to create a concise definition of the subject, and removed first sentence since it was redundant.

So far, I feel that I'm unable to understand your objections to my changes. From what I understand, your objections are in two forms:

1. New lead is giving historicity to Shambuka

I think this is due to some confusion between Ramayana and History. Please re-read new lead again with neutral POV regardless to your religious beliefs to understand that it is not giving the impression that Shambuka is a historical character.

2. New lead is treating subject as legitimate character of Ramayana

The subject is indeed a legitimate character of the text that we know as Ramayana today, as per aforementioned sources of this text, which you can read yourself here [14]. Regardless of that, my changes only re-arranged existing sentences of the article, and it is clearly stated in the new lead that given story is an interpolation. So I don't understand how my changes have altered anything with regards to the position of lead on legitimacy of this character.

Can you please elaborate on why you insist that interpolation should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, is it because of some policy or guideline that I might not be aware of? or is there some other reason that you have not mentioned so far? Abhinav Yd (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This idea that It is less important to note that Shambuka "is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda section of the Valmiki Ramayana," than the fact that Shambuka "is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana" is textbook POV. I agree with Redtigerxyz that Abhinav Yd's version is better. Hemantha (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Reflection of scholarly consensus on the subject is not a POV. Feel free to try an RfC but I don't think it will work in your favor though. Wareon (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)