Talk:Kumbh Mela

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Uttarakhand (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Hinduism / Mythology / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu mythology (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Links to photos from Kumbh Mela (etc) 2013[edit]

https://www.box.com/s/vhcl0dlhqld80hq7h0ly & https://www.box.com/s/loo4wtugqjanrx21ltax

You're welcome folks.Sean McHugh (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


Suggested Copy Editing and Clarifying Questions Follow[edit]

Kumbh Mela is a Hindu pilgrimage, rotating between four India cities: Prayag, Haridwar, Ujjain and Nashik. The pilgrimage visits each city once each four years. The twelve-year cycle ends in the Maha Kumbha Mela (Great Kumbha Mela) at Prayag in Uttar Pradesh. This is attended by millions of people, making it one of the largest, if not the largest, religious gathering in the world.


Questions:

A photo essay on the event in [Time Magazine] translates Maha Kumbha Mela as great urn festival. Is that correct?

Not exactly, In Indian Astrology (Jyotisa), Kumbha also stands for the zodiac sign Aquarius. See article: Kumbha -Mayuresh 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Does 'this' above refer to the Maha Kumbha Mela or the total of all four festivals in the cycle?

It would be helpful if there was a reference to official estimates here, if Uttar Pradesh or other authorities keep them.

A Battle Between Gods and Demons[edit]

Thousands of years ago, during the Vedic period, gods and demons temporarily agreed to work together to gather amrita (the nectar of immortality) from the Milky Ocean, and to share it. However, when the Kumbha (pot) containing the amrita appeared, the demons ran away with the it. And the gods chased the demons. Over twelve years (and a year is but a day for a god) the gods and demons fought in the sky over the pot of amrita. During the battle, the urn spilled drops of amrita on to four places: Prayag, Haridwar, Ujjain and Nashik. Thus, Kumbha Mela is observed at the four cites where the nectar fell.

The Pilgrimage[edit]

Millions of people attend the Kumbha Mela. Each pilgrimage's climaxes in a ritual bath. Other activities include religious discussions, devotional singing, mass feeding of holy men and women and the poor, and religious assemblies where doctrines are debated and standardized. Kumbha Mela (especially the Maha Kumbha Mela) is the most sacred of all the Hindu pilgrimages. Thousands of holy men and women (monks, saints, sadhus) grace the occasion by their presence. The suspiciousness of Kumbha Mela is in part attributed to the gathering of thousands of holy men and women at one place on earth.


How many days does each pilgrimage last? Do pilgrims come from India or from other places?

Where is the ritual bath held?

Is it in a river in each city, or a lake or other body of water?

In the last line of this paragraph, is suspiciousness the word your looking for? I think you mean auspiciousness.

Recent History[edit]

In 2003, the Kumbh Mela was held in Nashik, India, from July 27 to September 7. In a stampede, 39 pilgrims (28 women and 11 men) were trampled dead and 57 injured. Devotees had gathered on the banks of the Godavari river for the maha snan or holy bath. Over 30,000 pilgrims were being held back by barricades in a narrow street leading to the Ramkund, a holy spot, so that the sadhus could take the ceremonial dip first. Allegedly a sadhu threw some silver coins into the crowd; the subsequent scramble for the coins allegedly led to the stampede.


I would also link back to the categories on Hinduism and pilgrimages.

Respectfully,

--Bill Humphries 07:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Remove cleanup?[edit]

The article as it stands looks great and reads well. Is it not time to remove the cleanup notice? QuartierLatin1968 18:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to throw some more light on the following:
  • Ardh Kumbh Mela
  • A table showing the dates of Maha Kumbh Mela and places in the past 2 decades and the coming one decade
  • Official statistics as per Govt records
  • Interesting Trivia
VMO 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Completed copy edit[edit]

Will finish this very soon. Jekoko 21:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Completed copy edit but questions above remain unanswered. Jekoko 00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

photo[edit]

where are the people in that photo? i'm sure they're there.. i just don't know where.. what do 70 million people look like, after all? 131.111.8.104 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a satellite image. What is more interesting is the satellite image before the evnt and a comparison of the photographs shows the change in the topography of the earth due to so many people descending on the same place. No doubt that this is the largest ever human assembly in living history. --Gurubrahma 16:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

70 Million?[edit]

The "List of largest gatherings in history" page says that 70 million were present in 2001, and on this page we are told that 70 million were present in 2003. Is it 70 million every year? then why only 30 million in 2004? (as stated on the "list" page)

Ambiguity in the article's paragraph , Tu 15th of August[edit]

In the article's second paragraph, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumbh_Mela&action=edit&section=1), "Astrology and Kumbh Mela", the final sentece says:

"It is also said that the elixir of life is filled in a Kumbh (Pot) in Swarg (heaven) so with certain combination of Sun - Moon - Jupiter combination, the elixir falls from heaven to earth, and kumbh mela is held on those locations."

1st, the last two words were "on that locations", which is ungrammatical, so I changed it to "on those locations", which eliminates the ambiguity of whether they're held on many locations or just one.

2nd, I still find that the phrase "those locations" doesn't refer to anything inside the sentence, at least. What locations? On the planets? Perhaps where the elixir comes down from heaven, and would that mean it flows down in Prayag, Haridwar, Ujjain and Nashik? Someone with knowledge of this could perhaps explain it a bit further, I can't do it, at least yet.

Ardh Kumbh[edit]

It seems like there are quite a few mentions of "Ardh Kumbh" or "Ardh Kumbh Mela" in the news lately[1]. Is this the same thingg as Kumbh Mela? Maybe this could be explained in the article more. —Tokek 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 13:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical Event[edit]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi/Chapter_36

Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.24 (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Big numbers off the top of somebody's head[edit]

The article says:

The last Ardh Kumbh Mela was held over a period of 45 days beginning in January 2007, more than 70 million Hindu pilgrims took part in the Ardh Kumbh Mela at Allahabad, and on January 15, the most auspicious day of the festival of Makar Sankranti, more than 5 million participated.

This is sourced to this AP article, which actually says:

By midmorning Monday, some 3 million people had immersed themselves in the waters near the north Indian city of Allahabad, said festival organizer P. N. Mishra.
The number was expected to top 5 million by the end of the day [...]
Nearly 70 million Hindus are expected to participate in the 45-day "Ardh Kumbh Mela" or Half Grand Pitcher Festival, one of the largest regular gatherings in the world.

(My emphases.)

So the Wikipedia article takes the expectations of unspecified people to be historical fact. Further, the mis-cited AP article doesn't name or even hint at any source other than this one organizer, suggesting that it's him who provided the expectations. But he's hardly a disinterested estimator and not necessarily even a well-informed one.

This is an appallingly credulous use of a newspaper "source" -- the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a joke. Is the rest of this Wikipedia article equally based on the imagination? -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no exact counting of pilgrims during the Mela; there are only estimates. According to the Mela Administration's estimates, around 70 million people participated in the 2007 Ardh Kumbh Mela at Allahabad. ("Ardha Kumbh - 2007: The Ganges River". Mela Administration. Retrieved 2012-01-05. ) It should be noted that the "70 million" figure is for 45 days -- the figures for individual days is much smaller. The article should clearly state these figures are estimates. utcursch | talk 06:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Right, there can only be estimates. But consider an anti-government demo somewhere: the organizers give one estimate, the government a far smaller estimate (if an estimate at all), the police an estimate that may be honest but might also be small enough not to anger the government or big enough to ensure more funds and manpower. Estimates are all we have, but we should at least say whose they are, and look at what purport to be estimates of numbers present, not numbers expected to be present. ¶ Do please stick around: the other claims should be looked into, and I'll make a small restart myself during the next hour. -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, more problems. The article cited four sources to back up the claim that 60M people attended one event. Well, one of them is behind a Murdoch paywall and for all I know may say this (though it's billed as a set of photographs, so it's hardly an item where I'd expect a detailed written account). None of the other three makes this claim. Mere "sourced" fiction again. -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertisements for the festival[edit]

Lots of organizations want their tour package and accommodations advertised on this page. I deleted every external link which provides minimal explanation of the festival but also is selling services or hotel rooms. The person managing http://www.kumbha-mela.in is more persistent in adding their link than other sites. This link is not allowed per WP:SPAM. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

'Maha' needs clarification[edit]

Can someone who knows please address the ambiguity/error on the page. As someone who doesn't know much about the festival, I was slightly confused. It says a maha kumbh mela follows 12 cycles of 12 purna kumbh melas, i.e. 12 x 12 = 144 years. It also says that 2001 was a maha as the stars were aligned in a way that happens only once every 144 years. But then, in the table of melas on the article page, it shows 2001 and 2013 as maha kumbh melas. The reference in this section mentions 2013 being a maha a few times. If I was guessing, I'd say it's an error, hopefully someone with knowledge on the subject can clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HallucigeniaUK (talkcontribs) 13:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a Westerner and not an Indian, and I feel as you do. I continually find that no one discusses Indian traditions in the way that I expect scholars and journalists to cover Western traditions. This is true for Kumbh Mela. It seems to be the case that there is no scholarly book or journal article written on the subject in English language.
I also share your question. I am not aware of any source which could answer it. If you find one, please share. It would be really nice to have some history of what happened at all the Kumbh Melas for the past 200 years or so, or for however far back the recorded history goes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've the excact same doubt after reading this article. It does not clarify which one was the last MAHA kumbh mela. At once section, there is mention that 2001 was a Maha Kumbh, but then later it also says 2013 is a Maha Kumbh. If Maha Kumbh can happen only after 144 years, how is it possible to happen on both 2001 and 2013 years. Or is it a tradition to make the current Kumbh Mela to become Maha and forget the older ones as I also hardly see any details of Kumbh Melas before 2001 except for 1 or 2! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.36.132 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Maha Kumbh Mela does take place every 12 years, so 2001 and 2013 are both Maha Mela. The particularly auspicious Maha Melas (above and beyond the already high importance implied in the "Maha" title of these anyway) occur on the 144-year cycle - they are a subset of the standard 12-year Maha Kumbh Mela. Every twelfth Maha Mela is particularly auspiciously "aligned," and thus that period was mentioned. At least, this is my understanding from temple. I wish I had better resources. Ladytetsu (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about the whole Maha business. Essentially every 12 Allahabad Kumbhs is officially designated a Maha kumbh. Other than that it is a purna kumbh, or if it happens between the six year cycle it is an Ardh or half kumbh. Unfortunately the term Maha is simply just bandied around due to a mixture of ignorance and exaggeration. Sometimes by religious people trying to talk up the festival but mainly by travel companies trying to talk up the festival. Unfortunately the Wikipedia effect means that people quote incorrect revisions on this page and then these are subsequently quoted to back up the very incorrect revisions in the first place! I was at the 2001 Kumbh mela, writing for a serious UK publication and interviewed a lot of religious and governemt people and they all confirmed to me that was the Maha Kumbh. Now people are throwing the term around for this Kumbh; much as they did for the last Haridwar Kumbh and the ardh kumbh at Allahabad six years ago. Unfortunately hyperbole doesn't become true with repetition, yet off the back of low-grade websites, people are editing this page - basically rendering it (as you have stated) contradictory and actually worthless. I would bet anyone here that in 12 years, some numpty will be editing this page to make that one a Maha Kumbh (probably from a travel company trying to fill a tented camp). The citation for this is the Indian Embassy in Washington DC http://web.archive.org/web/20100403014350/http://www.indianembassy.org/new/maha_kumbh_mela_2001.htm This is quoted at the foot of the Kumbh page, but ignored by many of those who have bothered to check cources before editing the page.

As for the question about when the last Mahakumbh happened, this would have fallen in 1857; when there was rather a lot going on in the country (War of Independence/Indian Mutiny depending on your politics). There is no mention of a Maha Kumbh Mela in 1869 either, so looking back to history is unfortunately not a good way to settle the discussion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onecrowdedhour (talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wildly exaggerated count[edit]

Discussed in another section as well... the "estimates" are wild.

Official estimate was 8 million for the opening day, but police officials who were actually present at the site say that there were only 1.5 to 1.8 million people on the opening day - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21072957

Wikipedia articles should not simply quote wildly exaggerated estimates from tourism officials. 99.229.195.170 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Prayag or Allahabad[edit]

Original name of this ancient holy city is Prayag. In 1575 CE it was renamed Allahabad by the Mughals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.193.194 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

The name is Kumbha Mela not Kumbh*. It is not the real/original and pan-Indian name. can someone please change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.138.234 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If and when the name of the article is changed, only then should the wording used in the body of the article be changed. It's very confusing to have the title and the article be mismatched. Grayfell (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well kumbha is the orginal sanskrit pronounciation so it's just wrong to write Kumbh which is half of the pronounciation. i hope someone changes it soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.138.234 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but this isn't Sanskrit Wikipedia, this is English Wikipedia. It looks like the majority of reliable English language sources refer to it as Kumbh Mela, so you should make your case here before changing the article. We can have this discussion, but please don't change things until the issue is decided. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

it's a sanskrit/indian concept. it's kind of ethnocentric to use a hindi word to describe a pan-indian idea. i think the majority of english sources do this because it occurs in north india and they are obviously going to use Hindi sources even though it's an older concept than Hindi. the hindi word is a recent development. isn't wikipedia about accuracy and being true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.138.234 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, not what is true. I can see arguments for both cases. I understand and applaud your desire to avoid ethnocentism. I'm not sure what the age of the term has to do with anything, though. Wikipedia's policies are pretty well documented regarding article names (WP:NAME). The article's name should be recognizable and simple. Going by the sources, the most recognizable name for the largest number of English speakers is Kumbh Mela. At this point it doesn't matter what the Hindi or Sanskrit name is, what matters is the English name, and my impression is that it is Kumbh Mela. I know that this general topic has been a source of some controversy on Wikipedia in the past, and I hope others will chime in with any consensus that has arisen from past discussions. Also, Kumbha Mela is a valid redirect, by the way. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, just because recent changes in language have led to new words being spoken, does that mean that the original/real name is no longer valid? but if you change it to Kumbh from Kumbha then change Ramayana to Ramanayan and Mahabharata to Mahabharat and Sita to Sit and Rama to Ram and so on. also admit that you're going to marginalize validity of 40% of indian population who still adhere to traditional/original way of pronunciation and that you are indeed going the ethnocentric route. it doesn't matter what the English language sources say. They're biased! the tradition is held in a Hindi speaking place so they're obviously going to go w/ the local pronounciation THOUGH THE LOCAL pronouncation maybe wrong. in fact if you go to north india, they won't say yoga,they'll say Yog. are you going to change Yoga to Yog too? as far as verficiation:you've got the devanagari writing up there to read yourself. i'm not making this up out of thin air. any person who can read sanskrit will tell you that it is spelled and pronounced Kumbha. Only in Hindi (and other North Indian derivaties) do you not pronounce the ending vowel 'a'. 108.244.138.234 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with you here. It's very important to understand that things can have names in one language that don't match their language of origin. This is incredibly common, and is a core reason that languages evolve and develop. If you think this is being disrespectful, that's fine, but to accuse me of marginalizing people is insulting and inappropriate. It's named Yoga because that is what English speakers call it, just like how the article is named Germany and not Deutschland. I don't specifically care about what it's called in Hindi, or any other language, as I already said, I care about what it's called in English. Do you know of any sources discussing this issue? Your suggestions that most sources are biased shows to me that you may be confused about how Wikipedia works. The important thing is what reliable sources say. If all of the sources called it Kumbh Mela, then I wouldn't bother having this debate with you. It appears that most do call it that, however. If reliable sources say that calling it that is biased, then we can and should say that as well. I'm completely open to the possibility of changing the name of the article, but insulting me and claiming that English language sources are all biased isn't going to get you very far. Please try and remain civil, as that is a core tenet of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

i didn't insult you anywhere. i merely stated the fact that your rejecting of the original word and picking one linguistic variant of the original word is nothing else but biased and marginalizing even if that's the not the intent.

Again, you have the writing up there in Devanagari. I did not write that.

If the writing itself says Kumbha then why are we even having this argument? you can go ahead and remove the writing then or at least say Hindi pronunciation to specify that instead of Sanskrutam.

i'm not denying that there can be variations in a name. but i'm saying it's wrong to take the variation as the standard name. Again, the celebration occurs in a Hindi speak region. Majority of the speakers will refer to it in a language they know:Hindi. So are the english papers wrong when they refer to the way local people say it? no they're not, they're just reporting the localized variant of the real name. Also, afaik, this isn't some well established word in English.

you can check omniglot.com for the correct pronunciation of the devanagari script written up there in Sanskrutam vs. Hindi. Bha in Hindi is "Bh" and in Sanskrutam "Bha".

the "ah" at the end is not pronounced in Hindi while in Sanskrutam it is.

Again, many people speak Hindi and it is a valid variant of the original name but it is not the original name. Wiki,afaik, is about accuracy and being correct. Kumbh is incorrect as the original/real name. Kumbh is a VARIANT of the original name. at least write that the Sanskrutam/original name is Kumbha.

Again, many do call it that because in India it takes place in Hindi speaking region.Similarly many in north India call Yoga Yog but that doesn't somehow change the name in and of itself. 108.244.138.234 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying that you are incorrect about the pronunciation of the name. I think we agree that Kumbh is the Hindi term, and including the original name is a good idea. I strongly object to the idea that it is the real name, however; different names are used in different languages, and there's no reason to describe one as being unreal simply because it is a derivation. Kumbh is the Hindi term, and looking at the sources, it appears that it is also the English term. Being a variant doesn't make a word incorrect, this is an important point. Yoga is a term which is used by many English speakers in many different parts of the world. While Kumbh Mela is not nearly so well know, it is also widely used by many English speaking people across the world. You keep saying that Wikipedia is about being correct, and I am forced to remind you again that it is about verifiability. If sources are saying one thing, we cannot say something else without a very, very good reason. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


can we agree that there is an original name and a variation? and can we agree that wiki usually sticks to original when it comes to Hindusim since these have existed since 1500+B.C.? then based off of this, why use a recent development as the standard name, when in all others you're using the original name? as i said, i presume that the reason the Devanagari script is written and kept is because that has been verified. If you check the spelling and pronunciation of Sanskrutam language you will see that it is Kumbha and not Kumbh. there are several sites you can do this including wikipedia itself. omniglot is another.

THE VERY WRITING supports my view is what i'm saying. English speakers may be introduced to the idea because of recent English language sites covering this phenomenom. However, it has existed, as per the article:

>The first written evidence of the Kumbha Mela can be found in the accounts of Chinese monk Xuanzang (玄奘, alternately Hsuan Tsang) who visited India in 629–645 CE, during the reign of King Harshavardhana.[5][6] However, similar observances date back many centuries, where the river festivals first started getting organised. According to medieval Hindu theology, its origin is found in one of the most popular medieval puranas, the Bhagavata Purana. The Samudra manthan episode (Churning of the ocean of milk), is mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana, Vishnu Purana, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana.[7]

so it doesn't make sense to make standard the recent English version of an already existant ancient tradition. Again, especially when we all agree that this is but a variant and that the pan-Indian word is actually Kumbha as it has been known since ancient times and will even be recognizable to Hindi speakers now if they hear it. 108.244.138.234 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is very ancient, but I think that is besides the point. It is also a modern event with a modern name. The English article on the Olympic Games isn't "Olympiakoi Agones", which the events ancient name (and would be immediately recognizable to modern Greeks), it's the name it is commonly known as to English speakers. If you want to make your case, use WP:TITLE. Looking over a few of the many guidelines and past discussions related to this (WP:NCIN, WP:MOSIN, this thread, WP:INDIA, etc.), I haven't seen anything that makes me think I'm mistaken. It is a lot to go through, however, and I could easily have missed something. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unlike the Olympics which has an accepted English transliteration, Kumbha is an ancient Indian tradition that has only recently been covered by English magazines. We have a real opportunity here to spread some neutral knowledge. If you are not going to change it, at least write that the original/traditional name is Kumbha and that in the rest of India it is known as Kumbha and that the Devanagari script is for Hindi and not written in Sanskrit. Why does the fact that the English papers are biased because of local not matter? If I reported from Quebec some event is it logical or accurate to presume that Canada as a whole speaks French? That doesn't make sense. If you like I can provide you with other language (indian) video that refer to it as Kumbha and not Kumbh.https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fRQ1DVvgVRY here's a government official referring it to as Kumbha: http://blog.lkadvani.in/blog-in-english/kumbha-mela-a-spectacle-like-no-other 108.244.138.234 (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not denying that Kumbha Mela is a valid name, I'm saying it's not the English-language name. If English-language sources are biased about this, show me sources saying that. Spreading neutral knowledge is a noble goal, but it all comes down to sources. If we are spreading knowledge that isn't supported by sources, it's not neutral! I suggest you look over WP:RS further. When it comes to minority languages, there is a lot of injustice in the world, but Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. As for Quebec, I'm not sure what connection you are trying to make. Wikipedia goes by what is clearest to English speakers. The Kumbha Mela has received a large amount of coverage only fairly recently, but coverage it has received seems far more likely to use the term Kumbh Mela. There is a history of using that term in English; this article from Time used the term Kumbh Mela in 1960: [2], and it looks like there are others going back further. Other than fixing links that had been rendered unusable, I've refrained from making any edits to this page until this discussion has reached a conclusion. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The point of the Canada reference is, Allahabad is located in Uttar Pradesh,a North Indian state. North Indian languages(like Hindi) are derivatives of Sanskrit. Rest of country sticks to traditional usage of words whilst north India uses a corruption of the word. So using localized version as idea for entire nation is inaccurate. As far as it isn't supported by sources, as i've written already and you can check the Sanskrit pages on wiki,omniglot.com or even googletranslate for this: the writing in Devanagari on this very page already confirms what i'm saying. The writing translates to Kumbha, not Kumbh. So unless you are saying the writing already on the page in Devanagari script is wrong, there's no issue about verification. I don't know how else to verify it to you. Feel free to consult a Sanskrit reader what the writing says. Are you saying that even though English newspapers may not write the accurate word, simply because they have reported it, it becomes 'true' or the standard in the English speaking world? That seems like a terrible way of judging accuracy. By the way, there is a link to Kumbha within the article itself. So again,how else do i show bias? The article itself reports the original name and I have already explained the situation to you as to why English reporters are using the wrong word. i've also provided a different language news report using the word Kumbha instead of Kumbh.

The vast majority of English-language sources call it Kumbh Mela. Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, one of the core principles of Wikipedia, we must rely on sources. What name it has in other languages is irrelevant, because names are different in different languages. What name it had in the past is also irrelevant. Citing sources in other languages is not an appropriate way to establish what the name is in English. It has different names in different languages, and neither of us has the power to change that. If we can find sources, we should explain the name difference, but if you want to change the name of the article, you need to show a better grasp of Wikipedia's core policies. To answer your rhetorical question, yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If all the sources report word 'inaccurately' than Wikipedia should follow. You say it's terrible, but it would be much worse to ignore those sources. It is not up to you or me to decide which is the accurate word. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok.Sounds like propagating inaccuracy to me but well can you go ahead and at least add additions that that non-hindi/north indian languages it is referred to otherwise and that the Devanagari is for Hindi and not Sanskrit? 108.244.138.234 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I invite other editors to chime in. One thing that is absolutely crucial is not changing the names used in sources. Many of the sources used in this article were changed so that while the BBC uses Kumbh, Wikipedia's link to the BBC article used Kumbha. This is both very poor practice from a research perspective, and also from a perspective of academic integrity. We should not be misrepresenting sources to make a point! I have changed the spelling used in the article back to 'kumbh' because, as I have explained above, that is the precise term that the majority of English language sources use. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)