Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kalki

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Capitals00 (talk | contribs) at 16:33, 26 December 2017 (→Doniger etc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:33, 26 December 2017 by Capitals00 (talk | contribs) (→Doniger etc)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kalki article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 months 
WikiProject iconHinduism Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Large quantity of info removed, page protected

I am copying this over from Talk:Jimmy Wales, where it was posted by the IP editor. I'm copying the whole thing, even though it contains hyperbole and fairly silly personal comments (mostly because I don't want to edit the comments, and I suspect Ivanvector can tolerate a little of it), but I really, really encourage the IP editor to discuss more calmly, otherwise human nature will lead almost everyone to say "Meh". Or, if the personal attacks continue, will lead me to block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Begin copied material:

people like https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ivanvector feel they are gods! REALLY! Source or no source when these people are given power they decide what can be said and what may not regardless of the source or not. KALKI page is full of source less rubbish but he has the power to let it roll so it rolls, credibility is the key but when these people control wiki what credibility is there in the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure what this is about, but I tried to reply on my talk page. IP is upset I semiprotected an article where they were repeatedly removing large blocks of text without explaining why, and they still haven't explained why any of that text should be removed. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are not sure you should take time to read the page that you decide to take control off!

When you say: they were repeatedly removing large blocks of text without explaining why 

what is this? "A citation, also called a reference, uniquely identifies a source of information missing, not a vandelism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kalki&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The information I removed is the info without source / citation! what are you doing reverting to baseless info page?

Unlock the page, provide source and citation or revert to my edit which has only removed baseless information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

End copied material.

There's also some more at my talk page, it should be obvious which section refers to this. And no, I'm not going to lift protection so that this IP can delete most of the article again without explaining why it's such an emergency that every bit of unsourced material needs to be removed from this article immediately and without discussion. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

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

In the "Padma" section, there is some content that I originally added and someone has changed it to incorrect information according to the reference material that is available online as a PDF. It definitely says "Lord Shiva", not "Lord Vishnu" said this to Padma. http://om-aditya.ru/userfiles/ufiles/purany/sri_kalki_purana.pdf

Change: Lord Vishnu said to Padmavati that you will receive me Lord Narayana as your husband. Anyone (human, demigod, demon, etc.) who desires a conjugal relationship with you will immediately be transformed into a woman, regardless of age. This curse is not applicable to Lord Hari, who is your only husband.

To: Lord Shiva said to Padmavati that you will receive Lord Narayana as your husband. Anyone, whether they be demigods, demons, Nāgas, Gandharvas, Cāraṇas , or anyone else, who desires a conjugal relationship with you will immediately be transformed into a woman, regardless of age. This curse is not applicable to Lord Hari, who is your only husband. Jroberson108 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. Bhumipati Das. Sri Kalki Purana. 2nd ed. India: Jai Nitai Press, 2011. pp. 50-51 (ch 4, text 40-44).
  2. Bhumipati Das. Sri Kalki Purana. 2nd ed. India: Jai Nitai Press, 2011. pp. 50-51 (ch 4, text 40-44).
Done SparklingPessimist 00:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kalki. 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:

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) 11:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

Reminders:

  1. Please do not add content of any kind without an independent, reliable source; your own certainty that something is true is insufficient.
  2. Do not add material worded in a non-neutral way. But do not remove sourced material just because you don't like it, or disagree with how it is worded. Improve it.
  3. It is not permissible to reinterpret sources to mean what you want them to mean, or to combine statements from different sources to reach a novel conclusion not explicitly stated in any of those sources. This is what we call original research, and it is prohibited.
  4. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. It is not a personal blog or a Hindu temple's website. Use an encyclopedic tone, and avoid presenting doctrine as fact. Encyclopedias explain who believes what; they doesn't assert one group's beliefs against those of others.

This is all, and happy editing. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ<  08:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Very well put SMcCandlish. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditsWiki (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 to SMcCandlish. I have removed all unsourced OR, blog-like essay, and (strange) self-interpretation of primary sources. I have added summaries from scholarly publications. There is more in the newly cited sources, as well as the links above. Content based on WP:RS would be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New edits

@Ms Sarah Welch: I really don't think we can depend on one author who believes that the concept was likely borrowed "in some measures". I am merging some content to a new section named origins instead. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not one author. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Where does Alf Hiltebeitel said "The Kalki mythology in the Puranas may have been affected by ideas from West Asia."? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
And scholars use the word "differs" when describing the concepts of Purana. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Harivamsa differs from the Markandeya Purana, states Doniger. Those are two different texts. Relevant here are three types of inconsistencies: within versions of the same text, chapters of the same text and between the texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Do we agree that there is only one reliable source who believes that concept was borrowed "in some measures" not even wholly, Hiltebeitel finds Mitchiner's studies on this to be misleading though. That's why I had proposed this all under "origins", including the mention on Mahabharatha, Purana. We can also add a caveat that Hiltebeitel disagrees with Mitchiner. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hiltebeitel disagrees on some points, not all. He praises Mitchiner elsewhere. We do mention Hiltebeitel's related comments about Kalki in the Mahabharata. Actually, it is Gonzales-Reimann 2002 publication I was referring to, where they present Mitchiner style argument, that Kalki story is a late adaptation from a non-Indian source, etc. If I recall correctly, Alf Hiltebeitel mentions them in one of his footnotes as well. So, no Mitchiner is not alone on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I have read them, Hiltebeitel was highly critical of Mitchiner, that's why there should be no dependability on Mitchiner, I also agree with merging all that content to ===Origins=== also read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Anmolbhat (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Gonzales-Reimann 2002 makes no such mention of Kalki. All those religions that Mitchiner mentioned actually came in interaction with Hindus in medieval times. That's really late compared to Mahabharatha (4th century BCE) or Vishnu Purana (4th century). Such theories are best removed or minimized. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL as pointed, I have removed both claims. Mitchiner doesn't even say directly, "in respect of the views", "some measure", that's far from overall concept. Second removal was about Native American' Kukulkan. There are no multiple mainstream sources for supporting either information. Sometimes you can find enough reliable sources for exceptional claims such as Christ was borrowed from Krishna, but the claim has to be highly mainstream. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Instead of explaining all this, let me strengthen the article over the next few days. You are asking for more sources, than just Mitchiner! I am so delighted! I hope, from now on, you both and others will apply the wikipedia content policies to this article as diligently as you are now. See SMcCandlish's comments above, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The Mahabharata and the Ramayana are not each one consistent text. There are many versions... in and outside the Indian subcontinent! They were interpolated, extrapolated and sections were rewritten, for centuries. The difficulty is we don't know (probably can't know) which one is original. So we must treat all of them with equal respect, equal importance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV (please leave this header in)

Raymond3023: The reliability and inconsistency of the Puranas needs to be summarized for NPOV, because they are the main source of the divergent Kalki mythologies. Please explain why you removed it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

None of those sources mention Kalki. It is obvious that none of the texts from that old period are unchanged, including any non-Hindu texts but that doesn't have to be mentioned here since they don't mention Kalki. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
This part may be obvious to you, but not obvious to those new to this field. Further, there is more. There exist inconsistent versions of the same myths in the "several texts all of which are titled the same XYZ Purana" (there are so many of them). This needs to be clarified for NPOV. Yes, we are only talking about Puranas which do cover Kalki, along with zillion others thing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Sources have to point it out when they are discussing Kalki, otherwise it is WP:SYNTHESIS. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, we should do no OR:Synthesis. FWIW, I just began working on it and was planning to add much more. If you want to revise and improve it, you are most welcome. I will hold off, to avoid edit conflicts and come back in a few days or weeks, see where we are. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I have merged the section since it is manageable to talk under one heading. I will be looking more as well what can be restored. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It makes it confusing! Please don't remove it. Two different discussions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Doniger etc

  • The Hindus: An Alternative History is not to be used here or anywhere. Has been criticized by both sides. For example Michael Witzel had called this work "unreliable" and "idiosyncratic", while Aditi Banerjee had said on this book that it is full of mistranslations, errors. And in fact after criticism highlighted by Fowler on a talk page, there was removal of Doniger as source from few articles. While Albrecht Friedrich Weber is totally a colonial source. In those days, historians considered Judaism, Christianity, Islam borrowing everything from Hinduism and even Kaaba being a former Hindu temple. I have just found a dozen of sources saying that those religions borrowed the future savior concept from Hindus. But still, that shouldn't be mentioned, because there is no evidence. Also tagged the commentaries of Dimmitt, Cornelia; van Buitenen, they are just repetitions. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
We are not relying on Weber. We are merely stating that he was one of the first to propose Kalki may be a borrowed idea, which is relevant. You removed too much. There are numerous scholars stating this. I am okay with removing THAAH. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Capitals00: On THAAH, it is strange that you cited it just yesterday! I reviewed the source, added some more. Now you are complaining about it. Please explain. If it was an inadvertent error of your part, that is fine. Further, please explain all your deletions and tags. Else this comes across as POV pushing and disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no reason to describe the concept as borrowed, when there are enough sources that mention it as influencing others and the opinions are not mainstream. We need to state only what is non-controversial. There is rebuttal for the controversial claims but why we should even give weight to fringe theories? Raymond3023 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Because those sources are not WP:RS nor they represent the mainstream view. From hours of studies, what I have found is that there are a couple of hypothesis about Kalki. There are multiple sources for supporting Kalki has vedic roots and is borrowed from Rudra. Rabiprasad Mishra writes that Rudra's association with destruction of the creation and the elimination of its crisis is similar to the concept of Kalki. Then there are those like Alexandra van der Geer who says that Kalki's concept may have been completely taken from local warrior-heroes. Then there is Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi who said that Kalki has the features of an historical event, disguised as prophesy, he places Kalki after Pushyamitra Suriga and puts the dating of Kalki to first century BCE, this view was also shared by few others. So my point is that there are many theories, that are in fact far less controversial than what you are mentioning, but they shouldn't be mentioned either unless they are mainstream. Capitals00 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Raymond3023: Do you have any sources to justify your allegation it is fringe? It is mainstream scholarship! Six scholars and different publications... makes it not fringe at all. You have been making wrong allegations without sources, and what they actually state for too long (see above, Gonzales-Reimann does discuss Kalkin, you are wrong). Please start by citing your sources, that will help avoid what comes across as forum-y pretensions and opinions. CapitalsOO: why are they not RS? Ignore THAAH for now. Rest is all by professors, well known and cited in Indology, it is peer-reviewed scholarship. On your allegation, "just found a dozen of sources saying that those religions borrowed the future savior concept from Hindus", you cite self-published sources such as iUniverse... you must be joking! particularly, after that comment on THAAH questioning whether it is a WP:RS. Let us collaborate properly to help improve this article, please. If you indeed found peer-reviewed scholarly publication that states something different, I would welcome you adding the additional summary for NPOV. But right now, you are just deleting and being disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
But that would mean that we can point to Schlegel, Lassen, Schliemann, and Blavatsky separately who have made claims contrary to yours. Do you really want to use those sources that fail WP:HISTRS? The article would be full of fringe theories and attract others. What I have removed qualified exceptional claims. I haven't removed undue content but only tagged it. Capitals00 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00: You are evading my questions and my concerns with your iUniverse etc sources. Could you identify the sources with page number and try a more constructive approach please. I will make another effort to help you. Let us discuss what you tagged or deleted. Consider the following RS, for example. Please explain your concerns:

  • Cornelia Dimmitt, a professor of Theology at Georgetown University; co-authored with J. A. B. van Buitenen, the much-cited recently published Classical Hindu Mythology, deleted or tagged source has been published by Temple University Press
  • John Brockington, a professor of Sanskrit, a lead at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, numerous publications, Oxford University, published by Brill Academic
  • etc

Let us take one at a time. Please explain why you believe that these scholars and their Kalkin-related scholarship is not WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't used iUniverse on article but the passage that I was referring was correct.
Cornelia Dimmitt is not unreliable but that whole paragraph is undue and repetition, that's why I tagged it because it doesn't bring anything new and has been already said on other paragraphs. Brockington's claims about that particular part aren't so mainstream. Because he says that concept was inspired by Buddhist Maitreya but we know that its opposite, and he points Zoroastrian' future savior without mentioning that it is considered to have been borrowed from Chinese Mythology, and sharing similarities with Vedic deities. You can see I didn't removed Arvind Sharma for a reason, because his views seemed alright. Capitals00 (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories: