Talk:Shambuka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carleas (talk | contribs) at 18:18, 31 January 2024 (→‎Edit Request: Revert InternetArchiveBot: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Scholarly take on "interpolation"

Wendy Doniger, a respected Indologist, does acknowledge the episode of Rama beheading Shambuka here, nowhere stating that it is an "interpolation." Neither does Professor Robin Rinehart, explicitly stating that it is featured in the Valmiki Ramayana here. Neither does Professor Paula Richman refer to an interpolation here. As already stated, this episode is mentioned in Hari Prasad Shastri's translation here.

Moral sensibilities change, but they do not retroactively make an entire episode from an ancient text an interpolation. Chronikhiles (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chronikhiles. The Uttara Khanda is generally regarded as a later addition to the original epic, however is acknoledged as a character in the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana. The same concern is raised by User:TrulyShruti (Talk:Shambuka#Interpolation) and User:Abhinav Yd Talk:Shambuka#Lead_changes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was very clear right above. Your selective WP:CANVASSING won't help. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Aman Kumar Goel, there does not seem to be a consensus. From 2021 Talk:Shambuka#Mentioning_later_interpolation_as_an_opinion_rather_than_fact, the lead sentence is being questioned. Starting as a RFC as suggested by User:Wareon in Talk:Shambuka#Lead_changes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This version has stayed for over 4 years now. You won't get to change it unilaterally.
I also reverted your other new edits because they rely on highly outdated sources,[1], unreliable sources,[2][3] and self-published sources.[4]Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed in 2020 unilaterally; from 2007 to 2020 [5] [6] was some variant of "Shambuka (IAST: śambūka) is, in Hindu mythology, a character in (some versions) of the Ramayana."; also so many editors have objected to it or reverted it since 2020; this is not a stable version. Aman Kumar Goel, kindly change the parts that have isuses, instead of a blanket revert. I have many additional RS references.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what? For 4 years, the article is stable. You cannot change it unilaterally. Since you haven't addressed the unreliability of sources I have tagged the section but restored the last stable lead. Don't edit war over it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is just not true, Aman Kumar Goel.
  • The first sentence was stable as "some versions of" until 2020-08-02, when it was changed from "some versions of the Ramayana" to "original Valmiki Ramayana".[7]
  • Before that it was stable as "some versions of the Ramayana" from 2014-05-04. [8]
  • Before that it was "the Adhyatma Ramayana version of Ramayana" from 2012-07-28. [9]
  • Before that it was simply "the Ramayana" since a proper lead was first added in 2007. [10]
It has been subject of an ongoing edit war since 2020-08-02. It has been unstable for over three years.
Carleas (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the revisions since #970884655 in August 2020. Of the 301 revisions in that time, at least 85 were changes to the first sentence, and almost all of them changes between "interpolated character" and some other description. These changes are distributed over the past 3 years, with an average of 2.5 days between changes, and never more than a month (there's a consistent uptick around this time of year, interestingly enough).
So it's incorrect to say that there has been any stable consensus since "interpolation" was first unilaterally inserted into the first sentence in October 2020.[11] To the extent there is a WP:STATUSQUO, it would seem to be the "some versions" language that was unilaterally changed in August 2020,[12] rather than the "interpolation" language that was unilaterally inserted in response.
@Redtigerxyz, would you consider amending the RfC to include that as an option? Carleas (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, got my spreadsheets mixed-up. Should be average of 14.4 days between reversions, and the longest was several months (for 158 days between 2021-11-30 and 2022-05-07 it read, "Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana."
My apologies for the mistake, I'll edit my reply above to note it.
Carleas (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carleas, I am okay with an neutral wording where the POV pushing of "interpolation" is not there; however suggest that we arrive at that wording after we conclude this RfC. Suggesting the another option mid-RfC may not be a good option. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the right approach for a contentious article, though RfCs should be open to revision as long as it helps build consensus. As I've expressed elsewhere, I'm concerned that there is no engagement in discussion toward a consensus (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS; WP:STONEWALLING). Carleas (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In my assessment, there is no clear consensus for either option 1 or option 2. The users who support option 1 are more vocal and assertive, but they do not provide convincing evidence or arguments for why Shambuka should be defined as an interpolation in the first sentence. The users who support option 2 are more reasonable and respectful, but they do not address the controversy or the criticism of the character and the story. The users who support neither option or have other comments raise valid points and concerns, but they do not propose a specific alternative wording for the lead sentence.

However, I have a suggestion, to rewrite the lead sentence in a way that encapsulates the multifaceted nature of the sources and perspectives on Shambuka, without taking a definitive position or giving undue weight to any particular view. For example, something like:

Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a character who appears in the Uttara Kanda, the last book of the Hindu epic Ramayana. He is depicted as a shudra ascetic who is killed by Rama for violating the caste norms." (non-admin closure) --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Should the lead sentence start with

  1. "Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is an interpolated character, which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana but in the later addition called "Uttara Kanda"." version
  2. "Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda Book of the Hindu epic Ramayana."? version

RFC renewed 20:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC), originally opened by Redtigerxyz Talk 14:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support first option - Its a fringe topic that has been regularly falsified as historical person only for nefarious agenda of few, but scholars have given special emphasis with regards to the treatment of this character as interpolation. The lead must be always clear about it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
: Aman Kumar Goel, Please note characters like Lava (Ramayana) and Kusha (Ramayana) which do not elsewhere except Uttara and Bala Kanda; Bala Kanda is also widely regarded as an interpolation. Hope you as neutral person, do the honours by defining them as interpolated characters in the first sentence, if we reach a consensus here. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the issue of whether or not Shambuka is an interpolated character is disputed, I suggest beginning the article with a more neutral formulation, along the lines of:
    "Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a shudra ascetic character mentioned in the Uttara Kanda Book of the Hindu epic Ramayana. Shambuka is generally believed to be an interpolated character, not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana, although some dispute this claim." HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    HollerithPunchCard, Shambuka is treated as an interpolation per se; the whole last Book of the Ramayana Uttara Kanda is treated as one. IMO, we should have "the Uttara Kanda is generally regarded as a later interpolation to the original epic"; however at the same time, currently it is considered as an integral part of the Ramayana (see epic article for example).--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply and for your detailed discussions and references below. Well analyzed, and I have no objections to your view. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: Is Shambuka inserted anywhere else in the Ramayana? Describing him as an interpolated character makes it seem that he has been inserted into an earlier text, rather than being a character in a text that was appended to an earlier work. Carleas (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your concern was also Redtigerxyz's point, a point that I find reasonable. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that's right. To put it more bluntly, describing him as "an interpolated character" is factually incorrect, even if the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation; he's an original character in an interpolated work. The first sentence as written is not supported.
    As I mention in other comments, I am surprised not to see more on this page about why this particular character's status as interpolated/not interpolated matters, it seems important and undeveloped. As it stands, I don't see any arguments that justify stating that he is first and foremost interpolated. Carleas (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2:
    • The references quoted for "interpolated character" says that the last Book Uttara Kanda is a later addition to the Ramayana, not that only Shambuka is the only interpolation. The Uttara Kanda is now treated as an integral part of the Ramayana; which includes the events after the coronation of Rama including his abandonment of her wife Sita, Shambuka-vadha, the Ashvamedha sacrifice and his death etc. Ramayana Stories in Modern South India: An Anthology edited by Paula Richman p. 111 says "Most scholars view this book [Uttara Kanda] as a later interpolation, but whether it dates from Valmiki's time or somewhat later, it soon became part of the ongoing Ramayana tradition". The Shambuka episode is included in the critical edition of the The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: An Epic of Ancient India, Volume VII: Uttarakāṇḍa (princeton University Press) [13] pp. 111 onwards; Hari Prasad Shastri's The Ramayana of Valmiki, Valmiki Ramayan by Gita Press, The Concise Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki by Swami Venkatesananda [14] (along with other parts of the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana)
    • The Ramayana is an evolving epic. Many of the true stories like Ahalya turning into stone and Lakshmana Rekha are later developments. Comparing lead sentences with other later developments in the Ramayana - we do not denounce them in this line as interpolations. We state the facts that they exist. However, unlike the two ahead, the death of Shambuka is highly controversial in modern India; thus the first sentence as "interpolated" may be treated as non-WP:NEUTRAL, WP:POV pushing as a "interpolation" (read a falsehood)
      • Lakshmana Rekha: "Lakshmana Rekha (Sanskrit: लक्ष्मण रेखा), in some later versions of the Hindu epic Ramayana, is a line in the soil drawn by Lakshmana."
      • Maya Sita: "In some adaptations of the Hindu epic Ramayana, Maya Sita (Sanskrit: माया सीता, "illusional Sita") or Chaya Sita (छाया सीता, "shadow Sita") is the illusionary duplicate of the goddess Sita."
    • Besides the Uttara Kanda, Shambuka appears in other Sanskrit, Prakrit, also vernacular Tamil, Awadhi, Malyalam, Marathi, Telugu versions of the Ramayana. He also appears in Jain versions of the Ramayana. The 2023 book Śambūka and the Rāmāyaṇa Tradition by Aaron Sherraden, Anthem Press.
    • Review of references
  • (Summoned by bot) Support option 1 - I dont find the arguments above convincing at all - If you agree that the portion is a later interpolation, whats the issue with stating it as such? The reference put forth either call it an interpolation, and the ones that dont are passing references that cannot be used to demonstrate that it is not considered an interpolation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't the point. It may be worth describing Shambuka as an interpolation in the article (that's not in scope for this RfC), but it's not appropriate for the first sentence. See MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADCLUTTER. It is nonsensical to begin by describing where the character is not found. Carleas (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2 (Summoned by bot) Why would an article begin by describing where a character is not found? The opening should describe where the character is found, i.e. the Uttara Kanda. The extent to which the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation does not change that fact, and should only mentioned in the context of how it affects e.g. Shambuka's role in Hindu tradition or philosophy. Discussion of differing perspectives on the Uttara Kanda seem out-of-scope here, and more appropriate for the Ramayana page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carleas (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 The character is a later fabrication and the lead should be based on this fact. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This reasoning clearly violates WP:NPOV. Carleas (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Upon further review of this talk page and the edit history, there appears to be an ongoing edit war and multiple violations of WP:EW and WP:3RR. I suggest that this RfC be closed and the subject be escalated to WP:RFN or WP:DRN. Carleas (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've collected some relevant revisions, to make it easier if this is taken up by WP:DRN:
  • There has been an edit war around the issues raised here since at least 2008-11, with the creation of a 'Later propaganda insertion' section describing the Uttara Kanda as "of late origin". [15]
  • Descrition moves to 'Criticism and apologetics' section by 2012-02. [16]
  • Description as "of late origin" moves to 'Source of the Story' section by 2012-07. [17]
  • Disagreement moves into the lead by 2018-11, along with a description as an "interpolation".[18]
  • The first sentence became an issue by 2020-08-02, with a change from "some versions of the Ramayana" to "original Valmiki Ramayana". [19] This change is where the edit war that is the topic of this RfC began.
Pinging users that appear to be involved in this edit war, and those involved in earlier edit warring over related concepts, for comment (ordered by approximate level of involvement, i.e. count of edits since 2020-08-02; I have been over-inclusive in this list so we can develop the record):
Better still would be to resolve it amicably without appeal to WP:DRN. The most neutral version of the opening statement appears to be the "some versions of the Ramayana" language, and changing from that appears to be what started the present edit war two years ago. It is also interesting that the article says comparatively little about why this fight matters to the people involved. There is clear religious significance being drawn from it, and little discussion of why it is important that this character in particular (as opposed to other characters in the Uttara Kanda) is an interpolation.
Carleas (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed religious significance as well as sociopolitical significance. The character in question, Shambuka, was a low caste person who was punished by death for the alleged offense of performing the religious duties (ascetism) reserved for high caste persons. Hinduism has been accused of casteism for its poor treatment of the lower castes, with stories like this one being a prime example from the Hindu scriptures. Devout Hindus, especially those of a Hindu nationalist bent, desire to safeguard their religion from such accusations of casteism. As such, they would not want to accept that such an incident really happened, and/or that such a story has been part of the text from its origin. They would be inclined to accept the testimony of those who say that the story is a later interpolation, and not part of the original text. On the other hand, persons of the lower castes themselves, and those who have empathy for them, are concerned about the various forms of "saffron-washing"--that is, in this context, narrating a false history, for the sake of defending the Hindu faith--which have served to minimize, and/or to outright deny, the horrid plight of lower caste persons, and how they have suffered under caste oppression. They would be skeptical of claims, especially by said Hindu nationalists, that the story is a fabrication that only appeared in later times. They would be inclined to believe that the story was there from the beginning. Some Hindu nationalists claim, inaccurately, that caste oppression is a relatively recent phenomenon. Regarding this story to be authentic to the original disputes that claim. Regarding this story to be a later interpolation validates that claim. --TrulyShruti talk • sign 16:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is a useful summary of the background to the dispute here. Is there a page dedicated to this dispute? I don't see "Shambuka", "Uttara Kanda", or even "Ramayana" mentioned on Caste or Caste system in India, should they be? Are there reliable sources we can use to explain this aspect of the character in this article? What you describe matches what I gathered from researching for the section discussing caste, but I don't recall any directly addressing the connection to e.g. Hindu nationalism. Carleas (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there are reliable sources on the matter. Admittedly, Shambuka isn't much talked about, quite simply, because those on either side have--so to speak--"bigger fish to fry" than concerns regarding a relatively minor character in the Ramayana. But the broader concerns that intersect with this dispute regarding Shambuka (caste, "saffron-washing", etc.) are widely known and have been extensively discussed. --TrulyShruti talk • sign 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2: Why would an article begin by describing where a character is not found? The opening should describe where the character is found, i.e. the Uttara Kanda. The extent to which the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation does not change that fact, and should only mentioned in the context of how it affects e.g. Shambuka's role in Hindu tradition or philosophy. per Carleas. Also it is clearly disputed that the character is an 'interpolation' per se, so giving the assertion 'pole position' and only discussing the character in that light is POV. Pincrete (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per WP:NPOV. Treating this doctored character as authentic character like most of Ramayana characters would be a disservice to our readers. Dympies (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How has the character been doctored? Carleas (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BLUDGEON. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will keep that in mind. Carleas (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dympies and Wareon, Characters like Lava (Ramayana), Kusha (Ramayana) and Valmiki do not elsewhere except Uttara and Bala Kanda; Bala Kanda is also widely regarded as an interpolation. Just curious why we are not defining these characters are interpolations, by the same standard? POV ? (PS: not in favour of adding "interpolated characters" for them; just being rhetorical) Redtigerxyz Talk 17:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you provide are texts, so the parallel would be to describe the Uttara Kanda as an interpolation in the first sentence of an article about that text, though even that comparison is not apt: the Uttara Kanda is not much like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Compare instead the Book of Mormon, or the books of the Antilegomena, e.g. Second Epistle of Peter or Book of Revelation, none of which put known issues with authorship in the first sentence of the article.
Here, the question is not whether the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation, it's whether the Uttara Kanda being an interpolation is central to the character of Shambuka, and that does not seem to be the case. Glossaries that appear in works cited in this article describe him as, "A Shudra who sought to become a brahmin and was slain by Rama" [20], and "Character in Ramayana; Shudra who performed austerities and was killed by Rama." [21] Are there any similar descriptions of Shambuka that characterize him first and foremost as an interpolation? Carleas (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Neither of the references provided for the first sentence describe Shambuka as an "interpolated character"; that phrase does not appear in either reference. Nadkarni describes him as "a shudra who was killed on the advice of ministers by Rama as a punishment for doing penance and neglecting his caste duties", and Richman describes him as "a Shudra tapasvi (ascetic)", and the glossary in the same anthology describes him as, "a Shudra who practiced rigorous tapas."
Carleas (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading suggests Richman would not agree to the opening as it currently stands. The introduction to the work discusses the validity of numerous versions of the Ramayana. On page 8,[22] she states, "Truly, Ramayana is not a story but a tradition of storytelling, within whose capacious limits many different stories are contained." That suggests she would not accept an introductory sentence treating a specific version of the Ramayana as the true or original Ramayana, and other versions as implicitly illegitimate. This is made more explicit in the following paragraph, which explains:

When referring to a particular recounting of Ramkatha, the term "variant" is avoided because its usage implies that only a single correct version exists, from which every other telling varies. Instead, following the usage of A.K. Ramanujan, in this volume we use the term "telling" to refer to individual renditions. We do so because each selection is a valid telling of Ramkatha, worthy of attention in its own right.

This discussion follows a brief summary of the Ramkatha, in which she includes the story of Shambuka (page 7,[23]). This source not only doesn't support the current wording of the first sentence, it makes a strong case against it. Carleas (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option 2
For the following reasons:
a) Interpolated or not, this matter is of ongoing debate among scholars. Read this article from Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online which summarizes this information. Thus, boldly stating Shambuka as "an interpolated character" in the first sentence of the lead paragraph (when it is still highly debatable among scholars) goes against WP:NPOV. Per @Carleas's given reasons of MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADCLUTTER, it should be removed from the first line, but can still be mentioned and elaborated in the body of the article.
b) The term "interpolation" is used regarding the entire Uttarkanda chapter of the Ramayana, in which Shambuka is a part of. As mentioned by @Redtigerxyz, and these two articles (1 & 2), if the Balakanda is also regarded as interpolative, then why are the characters of Lava and Kusha (who are only mentioned in Uttarkanda and Balakanda) not introduced as "interpolative" characters in the first line on Wikipedia?
c) Still reiterating Carleas' point that Shambuka is not even explicitly defined as an interpolative character in the sources they have mentioned (please look above for further reference). I will also back that claim and state that James Lochtefeld's Encylcopedia of Hinduism p. 622 also defines Shambuka/Shamvuka as a "Shudra ascetic who appears both in the Ramayana, the earlier of the two great Indian epics, and in the poet Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsha, whose story line is based on the Ramayana."
Overall, this is an entire debate that can be mentioned in the Ramayana article, not in the first line for this character. Chilicave (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option 2
I have mentioned all the arguments due to which I support option 2 in the following section Talk:Shambuka#Mentioning_later_interpolation_as_an_opinion_rather_than_fact. Interpolation point can be mentioned in further lines that too as opinion of some scholars not as a fact. Jasksingh (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 per my comments in some threads above. Scholars agree that this character is an interpolation and they are specific about this character because of the controversy that it continues to create even today. That has to be highlighted on the main sentence. Ignoring this fact would mean that we are treating this character to be legitimate but Wikipedia viewers should be quick to learn that this is an interpolation. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither. The matter of whether the story of Shambuka is authentic to the original or a later interpolation is not settled; some scholars say "yes", whereas others say "no". The dispute is complicated by the fact that the subject matter--namely, the poor treatment of a person of low caste, by a prominent Hindu deity--is extremely sensitive. As such, there are scholars on either side which have decided their opinion, not based on the facts alone, but upon their own sentiments. (The implications being, if the story is authentic, that Hinduism is guilty of casteism, supported by its own scriptures; and, if the story is a later interpolation, that Hinduism was originally not guilty of the same.) The truth of the matter--which, again, has not been settled--will not be settled by an edit war, nor by a lede statement that takes a definitive position. It would be best for the lede to take a neutral point of view--noting, perhaps that the character is found in some editions of the Valmiki Ramayana--and for the a later section to give proper coverage to both sides of the dispute, not citing only scholars and theologians from one side whilst ignoring scholars and theologians from the other side. --TrulyShruti talk • sign 16:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 Per ArvindPalaskar. The coverage about this character is largely focused on analyzing its authenticity, as such we should continue to mention on the first sentence that it is an interpolation. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

I am intending to close this Request for Consensus but this is difficult with similar levels of support between the two options. Is there any chance of a compromise between the proposals? They do not seem to be mutually exclusive, but highlight different aspects of the subject. @Redtigerxyz, Aman.kumar.goel, HollerithPunchCard, Carleas, CapnJackSp, Georgethedragonslayer, Pincrete, Dympies, Wareon, Chilicave, Jasksingh, and ArvindPalaskar: Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, something like the last stable version from 2020-08-02 [24] is the best compromise:

Shambuka is a character in some versions of the Ramayana. According to that version, Shambuka, a shudra ascetic, was slain by Rama for attempting to perform penance.

That phrasing acknowledges that traditions vary on the legitimacy/canonicalness of the character without taking a side between them, and more closely reflects the way the sources cited in the article talk about this character (c.f. [25] [26]). At the same time, it plants a flag for discussion of those disagreements further along in the lead and/or article, and provides fair warning to someone new to the topic that the disagreements exist.
I suggested this above [27] and @Redtigerxyz seemed open to it, but thought this RfC should run its course before considering alternatives. No one else commented. Carleas (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with this, or any compromise that acknowledged who/where the character IS, rather than starting with his 'inauthenticity'. The 'some versions' could even be more specific. The extent of 'inauthenticity' can be covered later and does not need 'pole position'.Pincrete (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In line with Pincrete's suggestion for specific, suggest:

Shambuka is a character in some versions of the Hindu epic Ramayana, including the Uttara Kanda Book of the Ramayana. According to these versions, Shambuka, a shudra ascetic, was killed by Rama for attempting to perform tapas in violation of dharma, resulting in the bad karma which caused the death of a Brahmin's son.

Carleas, suggesting we retain the second sentence as it is. There does not seem to be any dispute regarding the same. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TrulyShruti, please see the above versions with the word "some" in the lead, as also suggested by @Carleas. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the version with "some" in the lede. --TrulyShruti talk • sign 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ArvindPalaskar: The RfC did not support the current version of the first sentence. The closing editor's suggestion is the best alternative pending further discussion toward consensus. If you object, participate in the discussion instead of WP:STONEWALLING. Carleas (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carleas: Can you please point me to the Wiki guidelines on how this works from this point onwards i.e. if the RfC suggestion isn't complied with and a group keeps stone-walling? Thank you. Phule lulu (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in new territory myself, but I think the best we can do for now is keep trying to reach consensus. I've opened a new topic below to continue the discussion of compromise language begun during the RfC. Carleas (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentence Compromise

I've reverted the first sentence to the language suggested by the closing editor, as the language currently in place was rejected by the RfC. A DRN filing was closed as intractable, so the only path forward seems to be to continue working toward consensus here. I've added a Template:Disputed_inline tag to the first sentence, which I've redirected here so that concerned editors can continue to discuss. I'd ask other editors to stop reverting the sentence, the language is disputed and the closing editor's suggestion is the closest we have to a neutral option pending this discussion. Toward the end of the RfC, an attempt was made to draft compromise language. The most resent proposed compromise was 

 Shambuka is a character in some versions of the Hindu epic Ramayana, including the Uttara Kanda Book of the Ramayana. According to these versions, Shambuka, a shudra ascetic, was killed by Rama for attempting to perform tapas in violation of dharma, resulting in the bad karma which caused the death of a Brahmin's son.

This language better captures the concerns of those who supported Option 1 in the RfC than the language offered by the closing editor, but no supporter of Option 1 commented on it, so we're on firmer ground to follow the suggestion of the closing editor pending discussion of the proposed compromise language. Later today I'll collate and summarize the arguments made for each proposal in the RfC, to have them handy to help with this task. Carleas (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my too-brief summary of the state of discussion, derived from collating all the arguments and trying to distill common themes. I did my best to give a fair accounting, but I would appreciate input from those who supported option 1 to ensure that I have accurately captured their points.
Looking through the discussion for the RfC, I see three general points of disagreement:
  1. Whether the Uttara Kanda is a part of the Ramayana
    • Supporters of option 1 argued that there is a scholarly consensus that the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation, and that suggestions otherwise are fringe or only made in passing and not forceful enough to overcome the consensus.
    • Supporters of option 2 argued that there is no scholarly consensus, or that scholars acknowledging its later authorship nonetheless consider it part of the Ramayana.
  2. How important it is to the character of Shambuka if the Uttara Kanda is a later addition
    • Supporters of option 1 argued that the Uttara Kanda's later authorship is a central aspect of this character, and that not stating up front that he appears in a later addition is misleading.
    • Supporters of option 2 argued that the character is not described first and foremost as a later addition in cited sources, and that the character appears in works other than the Uttara Kanda.
  3. How best to include disputes about the Uttara Kanda in the article about Shambuka.
    • Supporters of option 1 argued that because Uttara Kanda's later authorship is central to the character, it must be stated in the first sentence..
    • Supporters of option 2 argued that the dispute should be included in the article, but that it is unusual to include it in the first sentence.
I'd like to use this numbering throughout to help keep the discussion on track, so please do let me know if we need to modify this list.
Otherwise, it seems like consensus on 1 and 2 should be achievable by a review of the sources, while 3 will require references to the manual of style and/or canvasing similar articles. It may therefore be best to start with 1 and 2 and see if we can avoid debating style. I can participate in that tomorrow.
Carleas (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is controversial for being an interpolated character. That is precisely the biggest factor involved in this subject. You should avoid finding ways to get rid of that description. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume WP:GOODFAITH. My goal here is not to find ways to get rid of a description, it's to find a compromise between two strongly held positions on how this topic should be described. I would appreciate your assistance in that. Carleas (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through whole RfC over that and I am barely finding anything impressive from this discussion. You can try later. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you define what is an 'interpolated character' in standard English—the only version which you prefer to have for the lead sentence? Thanks. Phule lulu (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the RfC failed to reach consensus. You and @Ratnahastin are acting like that failure supports the status quo, but the language being restored was one of the options in the RfC, and the RfC showed that it is not the consensus. So we have to continue to discuss it instead of WP:STONEWALLING ("opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion.") Carleas (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the compromise as it currently exists, then made additional changes in a separate edit. It now reads:

Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a character in the Uttara Kanda, the last book in some tellings of the Indian epic Ramayana.

My rationale is as follows:
  • As mentioned below, the scholarly preference appears to be "tellings" rather than "versions".
  • Because the character does not appear in all tellings of the Ramayana, the Uttara Kanda should be mentioned first. This should also be less controversial, because there is no claim that Shambuka is a later addition to the Uttara Kanda, only that the Uttara Kanda is a later addition to the Ramayana.
  • Because the Ramayana is a sacred text in multiple religions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, likely many more), it's better to describe it as an Indian epic, rather than a specifically Hindu epic.
Carleas (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic that you are talking about stonewalling when the time is to move on.
Why do you believe edit warring can be the solution when we have already went through RfC?
Your edits are doing nothing much other than suppressing the fact about the character being an intepolation. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete large portions of the page even the content other than the lead sentence? Can you please explain how is it not vandalism of page?
When you say 'time is to move on' without explaining yourself why the 'interpolated character' version should stay, and not participating further in RfC, is it not 'stonewalling' ?
The author had included the part which does acknowledge that the character is found in the chapter considered as later addition by some. How is it suppressing the fact? Phule lulu (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arvind, you cannot provide a single source that describes Shambuka as an "interpolated character".
Carleas (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative:

Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a character in the Uttara Kanda.

Rationale: doesn't mention Ramayana, since the dispute is not about whether he was originally in the Uttara Kanda, but whether the Uttara Kanda is in the Ramayana. Says as little as possible while still being true and informative. Carleas (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArvindPalaskar "then wait until there is actually any consensus"
  1. There will never be consensus if you do not engage in discussion. You are WP:STONEWALLING
  2. The text you keep restoring is not consensus.
Carleas (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we had whole RfC with regards to this very same question and you are still looking for highly predictable answers. You can see WP:STICK. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The horse isn't dead; the debate has not "come to a natural end". The RfC failed to reach consensus, it did not establish consensus for your favored version.
Stonewalling does not establish consensus. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue", and you have provided no arguments.
Carleas (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another attempt at a compromise:

Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a character found in the Uttara Kanda, an interpolated book included in some tellings of the Ramayana.

Explanation:
  • Leaves 'interpolation' in the first sentence because that's clearly important to some editors (though they refuse to explain why), and appears supported by most scholarship.
  • Removes the description of "interpolated character", which is not supported.
  • Does not begin by describing where the character does not appear, which is confusing and absurd.
Carleas (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed edits are certainly omitting any facts about the legitimacy of not only the character but also the book itself. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of facts: please provide a single WP:RS that refers to Shambuka as "an interpolated character". As of now, the claim is unsourced. Carleas (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should take this to 'Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee' to address the repeat vandalism of lead sentence without providing any supporting evidence for the unheard-of phrase 'interpolated character'? Phule lulu (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, though coming from me it looks like WP:SOURGRAPES. But from the time I first got involved with this article, it was pretty clearly a case of WP:GAMING, specifically WP:STONEWALLING, WP:FILIBUSTER, and WP:TAGTEAM. The RfC failed with few substantive comments in support of the status quo, that option failed to achieve consensus but every alternative has been reverted with some version of "get consensus first" [28][29][30][31][32], but the editors don't substantively engage in discussion toward consensus. Other edits are now being reverted for not getting permission first.[33] The inline dispute tag has been removed repeatedly removed, along with numerous edits throughout the page unrelated to the first sentence/RfC, not subject to dispute, and without justification (often including reverts of maintenance edits like correcting typo in a named reference).[34][35][36] This behavior didn't start with the RfC, it's the reason the RfC was created.
It's been going on for two and a half years,[37] the RfC has failed,[38] the DRN request was denied,[39] partial protection [40] did not reduce the temperature, multiple editors have been blocked or warned,[41][42] and the edit warring continues. I don't think this will be resolved without administrative intervention. The DRN denial recommended escalation to WP:ANI if WP:TENDENTIOUS editing continued.
Carleas (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Admins can do nothing to resolve your content dispute. Your concern is better addressed on WP:STICK which clearly states: "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a long, drawn-out draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." Ratnahastin (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Wrt to the sources discussed in the RFC, I have not any sources that "define" Shambuka as "interpolated character". We do not define Maya Sita, Lakshmana rekha as interpolations. Also refer to Purusha Sukta, where the definition says it is a hymn (earlier "interpolated hymn" was pushed). Second sentence mentions the controversy. We state that they are found in some versions of the Ramayana or the Bala Kanda or the Uttara Kanda. "Uttara Kanda is an interpolation" is not a fact, it is a majority opinion. There are still traditional proponents that believe Uttara Kanda is written by Valmiki [43] (a good summary of opinions). Suggest we just state the facts in the lead as per MOS:FIRST: "Shambuka is a character in some versions of the Hindu epic Ramayana, including the Uttara Kanda Book of the Ramayana." It is undisputed that he is a character in Uttara Kanda. "some versions" provides POV balancing. "Uttara Kanda, an interpolated book included in some tellings of the Ramayana" is POV in my opinion and false as an opinion is stated as a fact. Requesting other editors to provide sources that define him as a "interpolated characters". --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Interpolated character" is pretty clearly wrong, no source claims that this character specifically was inserted into the work, and as far as I can tell this is the only article on all of Wikipedia that describes someone as an interpolated character [44] (all but one use of the phrase are about this page/RfC; the only exception is talking about typeface [45]).
Calling the Uttara Kanda an interpolation is better supported; I agree that it's not unanimous, but it's stronger than an opinion, and is approaching scholarly consensus (from what I've seen, the disagreement is whether it was written later by Valmiki or someone else). But the scholarly consensus is that the book appears in "Valmiki's Ramayana": that term refers to a specific manuscript and does not assert a claim of sole authorship by the poet.
Including interpolation issues around the Uttara Kanda in the first sentence strikes me as MOS:LEADCLUTTER, but as a compromise it's at least arguably true, where Option 1 in RfC is just incorrect.
The only change I'd suggest to the language you inserted is to change "Hindu epic" to "Indian epic" or "ancient Indian epic", which follows Goldman (2016) (and other works by Goldman in that series, all of which have "An Epic of Ancient India" in the subtitle), and acknowledges that non-Hindu traditions also treat the Ramayana as a sacred text. Carleas (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had used this argument before and during the RfC but it hasn't been conclusive. Can you stop making same arguments again? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you are finding problems with any other articles then you must fix them.

Some sources:

  • Nadkarni, M. V. (2003). "Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism? Demolishing a Myth": 4783–4793. ISSN 23498846 00129976, 23498846. JSTOR 4414252. The interpolation was done at a time when varna system deteriorated and got established on the basis of birth in a rigid form. Shambuka's story is not consistent with many examples of persons of so-called low birth being initiated into Ashrams as pupils by Rishis, and becoming Rishis themselves. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Neha Singh, Prof. Abhilasha Singh. "Interpolations in the Valmiki Ramayan and Rationality Behind It". Dialogue. explore interpolation by examining various incidents, such as the Phalashruti at the end of 'Yuddha Kanda', Sita's banishment, Shambuk's termination [...] The episode of the termination of Shambuk is also completely illogical.
  • Yadav, Sandeep. "Periyar Lalai Baudh: The Unsung Hero of the Anti-Caste Movement in North India". The Wire. However, this story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination.
  • Vanita, R. (2021). The Dharma of Justice in the Sanskrit Epics: Debates on Gender, Varna, and Species. Oxford University Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-19-267601-6. Shambuka in the Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana is an episode that reveals a major faultine
  • "Untouchability affire". WorldCat.org. Shambuka , as already mentioned. It is again frivolous concoction, motivated to blemish the holy image of Rama, hero of Ramayana, by some mischievous Brahmin intellectual and cleverly interpolated in the Uttara- Kanda
  • Shukl, R. (2021). Varn System. Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd. p. 150. ISBN 978-93-5486-775-0. It is also clear that in the case of killing of Shambuk, a Shudr, subsequent interpolation have made it a case of Shudr killing. The summary of the disputed Shambuk's beheading case described in Uttarkand
  • Rao, Vanam Jwala Narasimha (2023-03-05). "Killing of Shambuka by Rama, a woven fantasy". Andhra Pradesh Breaking News, Telangana News, Hyderabad News Updates, National News, Breaking News. Promoting a fabricated story in favor of an unimportant and self-created killing of Shambuka (by King Sri Rama), a character purported to have been mentioned in Ramayana's Uttara Kanda

Since this character is highly controversial and undoubtedly faulty, you cannot whitewash the first paragraph. Everyone find the character and book both to be an interpolation. There is no disagreement. Just because you find something to be "POV in my opinion" then still the fact cannot be suppressed. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. M.V. Nadkarni (Mangesh Venkatesh Nadkarni), born on February 23, 1939, an economist by training and profession, has deep interest in other social sciences as well, as also in religion and philosophy." [46] Nadkarni is an established economist and peer-reviewed. I could not find any references being considered an expert in religion. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning the neutrality and encyclopedic value of this work with terms like "Shri Ram", "Sita ji", "Sanatan Dharm", "Devi Sita", "Lord Krishna"; also the tone of the work with rhetorical questions. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The play Shanbhuk Vadh (1964) is based on the myth of Sambuk’s murder. It is a story that is found in the Uttara Kanda; according to this story, Rama, the king of Ayodhya, killed a shudra ascetic named Shambuka for performing tapas (austerities), which was against the rules of dharma (duty) for his caste. This act of Rama was supposed to restore the balance of the cosmic order and revive a Brahmin son who had died due to Shambuka’s transgression. However, this story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination." Again Shambuka is initially defined as part of Uttara Kanda again. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one reads this further, "Shambuka in the Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana is an episode that reveals a major faultine or contradiction in the text... Various explanations of the contradiction are possible, but they do not fully explain it away. ... By killing him, Rama fulfills his wish, ... This remains an unresolved contradiction within the Ramayana." Ruth does not per se call him an interpolation, while defining him part of the Uttara Kanda, which is a fact. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to read online. The book is not peer-reviewed; printed by a charitable Trust.Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book is a translation of a Hindi book. [47] The author is a BJP political leader, former minister of Uttar Pradesh (not a scholar). Again questionable neutrality and encyclopedic value - "Shri Ram" --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"King Sri Rama", "Great Sage Valmiki", "Sri Ramayana". Not a reliable source.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Georgethedragonslayer, kindly provide reliable sources where Shambuka is "defined" as an interpolation. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally ironic of you to engage in nitpicking given what horrible quality of sources you have used for claiming "Shambuka is alluded in Mahabharat", with one of your unreliable source[48] not even mentioning "Shambuka". Wareon (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shambuka is spelled as "Samvuka" in the source; also see note 338:1. The so-called "unreliable" is the translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguli; Quoting Mahabharata article: "Most critics consider the translation by Ganguli to be faithful to the original text. The complete text of Ganguli's translation is in the public domain and is available online" (which is linked). It is also ironic that other 4 references are ignored Redtigerxyz Talk 07:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Arguments made in the RfC are worth revisiting, because the RfC failed to reach consensus. We need to continue to discuss the disagreements that lead to that failure.
  2. I don't see how anything I said is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My point is that no source refers to Shambuka as an "interpolated character", and as far as I can tell that term was invented for this page alone.
  3. The sources you've offered support the claim that the Uttara Kanda is an interplated book, a claim I had my most recent edit of the first sentence,[49] and which you reverted without explanation.[50]
Carleas (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, your edit was not just concerned with the word "interpolated" but much more than that. Wareon (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see despite your best efforts, there is a focused obfuscation in order to dehumanise the character Shambuka under the pretext that 'Uttara Kanda' is later addition, which ironically you did cite in your edit.
May I request you to look at comments left by ToBeFree on the Talk page of ArvindPalaskar on some guidelines around this. Phule lulu (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to fix the chopping off done by Redtigerxyz with regards to comment of Georgethedragonslayer. Unless you can bring as many scholarly sources which say that Uttara Kanda or this character is not an interpolation, then you stand no chance to change the lead. Also, don't add the frivolous "disputed" tag to the lead. The information has been confirmed by many scholarly sources and the RfC also ended up with "no consensus". That tag is not supposed to be used only because you failed to get your version. It is clearly disruptive to misuse this tag only to somehow pave a way for your preferred version. Wareon (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent edits by Carleas did not claim that Uttara Kanda was always the part of Valmiki Ramayana. Your attempt to use such a false claim in order to not answer the question, 'What is the scholarly source which says Shambuka is an interpolated character' is disingenuous.
    Uttara Kanda can be considered a later addition as per some sources (that too added to upheld brahminical superiority), but Shambuka, a character in Uttara Kanda is just that, 'a character'. Usage of some random English phrase 'interpolated character' just taints the character with no evidence to support. Phule lulu (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your claim that "Uttara Kanda can be considered a later addition as per some sources" is false because it is an entirely later addition. Shambuka's own story is not consistent with Jain version where he was not killed. If you want to allege people of caste bias then you are at a wrong place. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can not use one version of Ramayana (Jain) and with it reject all other versions mentioning Shambuka episode. Do you see Lava and Kusha, sons of Ram, being mentioned as interpolated characters elsewhere in Wikipedia?
Do you have even a single source which uses the term 'interpolated character' for Shambuka, and is it even a standard phrase in English? Phule lulu (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you see The Wire source (cited above) saying that Shambuka "story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination."? How else will you describe it as if not "interpolated character"?
Do you have any other suggestion aside from "interpolated character" to define Shambuka which can reflect it's highly inconsistent and contradictory description across Jain and Hindu scriptures? If you don't have then at least don't whitewash the subject by making edits like this. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that a version of the Uttara Kanda without Shambuka's story was part of the Valmiki Ramayana, and Shambuka's story was added to that book later?
Carleas (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No he did not say that. It is not certain when Shambuka story came to Uttara Kanda either and it is very brief. Yes it contradicts with other versions from around the same time. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there versions of the Uttara Kanda that do not include the Shambuka story?
Carleas (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArvindPalaskar Please reply. I'm trying to understand why "interpolated character" vs. "interpolated book". The latter seems better supported and more accurate, but you seem to be saying the story was inserted in the Uttara Kanda separately. I have not seen that claim made elsewhere, so I want to be sure I'm understanding you. Carleas (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the article in the The Wire, the paragraph before your quote is where Shambuka is first mentioned:

"The play Shanbhuk Vadh (1964) is based on the myth of Sambuk’s murder. It is a story that is found in the Uttara Kanda; according to this story, Rama, the king of Ayodhya, killed a shudra ascetic named Shambuka for performing tapas (austerities), which was against the rules of dharma (duty) for his caste. This act of Rama was supposed to restore the balance of the cosmic order and revive a Brahmin son who had died due to Shambuka’s transgression."

I'm not sure that a news and opinion website is a WP:reliable source for this (there are better sources supporting the claim that the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation, e.g. Goldman2016 and Goldman2020), but even that source does not mention interpolation first, it describes Shambuka as "a shudra ascetic", and says his story is found in the Uttara Kanda, and only mentions interpolation in the second paragraph discussing his story.
Carleas (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear there is a concerted attempt to dehumanise the character using this misleading phrase 'interpolated character' rather than calling the book 'Uttara Kanda' as interpolation. That too while conveniently glossing over this reasoning from the same source 'However, this story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination'. Intellectual honesty will mean same meaningless phrase being forced on characters like Lava, Kusha (sons of Rama) from Uttara Kanda, in their Wikipedia pages, yet here we are.
Any way, if you can take the lead on bringing it to Arbitration committee or whatever be the appropriate step to get this article past this concerted stonewalling, I'll work on gathering required scholarly references to support. Thank you for bringing it this far. Phule lulu (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wire is a reliable source thus it is useless to question the source in this discussion.[51] Goldman has cited Asim Kumar Chatterjee in his chapter and mentioned that he treates Shambuka as "an invention of some bigoted Brahamana poet".
@Phule lulu: For Arbitration committee, first read this page, it clearly says, "The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content disputes, which are resolved by alternative methods."
You already know the criticism that exists about Shambukha and why "interpolated character" is mentioned. If you can find similar criticism for the stories of Lava and Kusha then let me know. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see that The Wire was determined to be "generally reliable for factual reporting," i.e. news reporting. But that's not what the source is being used for here. The WP:RS page clarifies that "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." While the Wire is generally reliable for factual reporting, that does not make it reliable for this purpose.
You also did not address the point that The Wire does not describe Shambuka as an "interpolated character" when it first mentions him (and never uses that phrase), which is a problem since it's being used to support referring to him that way in the first sentence of this article. The Wire article, RS or not, does not support calling him an interpolated character in the first sentence.
Carleas (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these should be cited in the article, because they discuss an important aspect of the character (that I added a large section of the article to address,[52][53] and your help expanding it would improve this article).
But none of these sources use "interpolated character", and they don't support the current version of the first sentence. At most they describe the Uttara Kanda as an interpolation. When they describe Shambuka at all, they introduce him as a "shudr" or "ascetic" before mentioning interpolation (Nadkarni, Yadav, Shukl). Others explicitly support that his story is part of the Valmiki Ramayana, even if it is an interpolated book in that manuscript (e.g. Vanita, "Shambuka in the Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana" (emphasis added).
Please WP:AGF, I'm not denying that the character is controversial nor that the Uttara Kanda is a likely interpolation. What I'm saying is that the first sentence as written ('Option 1' in the RfC) is a bad way to begin the article, it's confusing, it's poorly supported, it's not a good introductory sentence. The article should include substantial discussion of what makes this character controversial and how his story is used in discussions around interpolation in the Ramayana. The first paragraph should absolutely briefly introduce that controversy. But the first sentence should not begin by describing the topic of the page in a way no scholar does, in terms that no scholar uses, making claims unsupported by scholarship, and stating where the character is not found. Carleas (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, this has reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Shambuka. Have proposed to revert lead sentence to RFC closer's non-binding suggestion and fully protect the article. Redtigerxyz Talk 09:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have problem with "interpolated character" but like others have already asked, I will also ask. Do you have any other suggestion for wording which is at least as strong as the current wording? Wareon (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Defining Shambuka as "interpolated character" is a POV. The following is neutral and factual. The word "some" by suggests that he is not included in all versions of the epic. Also in line with definitions of the character in academic sources as detailed in below part.
Maybe I missed it, however no RS sources are presented clearly defining Shambuka as "interpolated character". Shambuka should be defined as what "he is" (character in Uttara Kanda), rather than what he is not ("which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana")
Redtigerxyz Talk 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are suggesting completely whitewashes the subject and ignores all the criticism. The Wire source (cited above) saying that Shambuka "story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination." So how else will you describe it as if not "interpolated character"? Surely we cannot ignore the criticism that has surrounded the subject so far.
"which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana" is 100% correct. Read this:"interpolation took place in the Rāmāyaṇa story the Uttarakāṇḍa was not the part of the original Vālmīki -Rāmāyaṇa and it seems to be an interpolation of the later Vedic times ( 3rd century to 2nd ), the Sambūka episode is a later addition since it finds place in Uttarakāṇḍa. Therefore , such an interpolation and question based on interpolation seems to be out of context. If Rāma was the king of the post - Vedic times, the Sambūka incident might have been authentic and somewhat real, but since the history of Rāma is not very clear , we cannot associate him with the caste ridden society."[54] Ratnahastin (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the correct link? The linked source appears to be in Italian.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the Wire article is not a reliable source for scholarly research, and in any case it does not describe Shambuka as an "interpolated character". The preceding paragraph from that article describes Shambuka this way:

The play Shanbhuk Vadh (1964) is based on the myth of Sambuk’s murder. It is a story that is found in the Uttara Kanda; according to this story, Rama, the king of Ayodhya, killed a shudra ascetic named Shambuka for performing tapas (austerities), which was against the rules of dharma (duty) for his caste. This act of Rama was supposed to restore the balance of the cosmic order and revive a Brahmin son who had died due to Shambuka’s transgression.

So if you really wanted to follow this source, the first sentence should be something like

Shambuka is a shudra ascetic in the Uttara Kanda who was killed by Rama for performing tapas.

That's the information about Shambuka that the wire article puts up front; it discusses interpolation in the following paragraph.
Carleas (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wire is fine for this information specially when it is not alone with alone the dispute.
With that your proposed wording, you are not highlighting any dispute despite this whole subject is fraught with that. Instead your wording appears to be making the whole thing appear as if there is no dispute. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that issues of interpolation should be discussed somewhere in the lead, they are an important part of Shambuka's continued importance. But the first sentence is not the right place for them, it's a confusing way to start describing the topic.
My point is that the source you're citing doesn't highlight the dispute when it first describes Shamuka either: it first describes his character in the context of the Uttara Kanda, and in the next paragraph describes issues around interpolation. The same would be reasonable for this article: describe his character in the Uttara Kanda, and then discuss issues with that work and how they relate to this character.
Separately, the phrase "interpolated character" is misleading, it doesn't accurately describe the dispute. No RS uses it, and scholarly consensus is that the whole of the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation. "Interpolated character" makes it seem like the character was inserted into the Uttara Kanda, when in fact Shambuka being part of the Uttara Kanda is used as evidence that the Uttara Kanda as a whole is interpolated. It's more accurate and better supported by scholarship to say that he's a character in a book in the Ramayana now regarded as an interpolation.
Whether or not The Wire is RS for this purpose, it supports these points. Carleas (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure I will be only repeating myself if I responded to your message. Now TrulyShruti[55] has made a unilateral modification to the lead but I won't revert it right away. I will think of something more accurate and come back soon. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for 1 and 2

Sources are roughly ordered to address points 1 first and 2 second, but many arguably go to both points so I did not label them as addressing one or the other. Please add any that I have missed.

  • N.L. Gupta (2003), An Introduction to Eastern Ways of Thinking, p. 158: "By now, it can be confirmly said the 'Uttarkand' of Ramayana is an interpolation of quite later period (IV or V century A.D.) which was made an instrument, among other things, to highlight the supremacy of the privileged class, i.e. Brahmins. This phenomena has been reflected in writings by many noted scholars Eastern as well Western." Source
  • Paula Richman (2008). Ramayana Stories in Modern South India: An Anthology, p. 111: "...Valmiki's Ramayana depicts Rama slaying Shambuka, a Shudra tapasvi (ascetic)... The earliest and most prestigious account of Shambuka's story appears in the last book (uttara-kanda) of the Ramayana attributed to Valmiki. Most scholars view this book as a later interpolation, but whether it dates from Valmiki's time or somewhat later, it soon became part of the ongiong Ramayana tradition." Source
  • id., p. 232: "Shambuka: a Shudra who practiced rigorous tapas."Source
  • id., p. 8: "Truly, Ramayana is not a story but a tradition of storytelling, within whose capacious limits many different stories are contained...When referring to a particular recounting of Ramkatha, the term "variant" is avoided because its usage implies that only a single correct version exists, from which every other telling varies. Instead, following the usage of A.K. Ramanujan, in this volume we use the term "telling" to refer to individual renditions. We do so because each selection is a valid telling of Ramkatha, worthy of attention in its own right.Source
  • Julia Leslie, Authority and Meaning in Indian Religions, p. 194: "In a minor incident in the Valmiki Ramayana, the sudra Sambuka ..." Source
  • M. V. Nadkarni (2003). "Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism? Demolishing a Myth", p. 4787: "The story of Shambuka in Ramayana is also cited as supporting caste system to an extreme extent. It is the story of a shudra who was killed on the advice of ministers by Rama as a punishment for doing penance and neglecting his caste duties. The story appears in Uttara Kanda, which is not a part ofValmiki's Ramayana which ends with Rama's return to Ayodhya in Yuddhakanda. P V Kane, an eminent Sanskrit scholar, is of the view that Uttara Kanda was clearly a 'work of later interpolators' [ibid: Vol 1, Part 1, p 389]."Source
  • James Lochtefeld, Encylcopedia of Hinduism, p. 622: "Shudra ascetic who appears both in the Ramayana, the earlier of the two great Indian epics, and in the poet Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsha, whose story line is based on the Ramayana." (quoted by Chilicave [56])
  • Vettam Mani, Puranic encyclopedia p. 677: "A Śūdra muni." (quoted by Redtigerxyz [57])
  • Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary: "a Śūdra (who had become a devotee and was slain by Rāma-candra), R. ; Uttarar. (cf. śambuka)" (quoted by Redtigerxyz [58])
  • Hari Prasad Shastri (1957). The Ramayana of Valmiki. Vol. III - Yuddha Kanda and Uttara Kanda, page 673}}"Shambuka: A Shudra who sought to become a brahmin and was slain by Rama." Source
  • Rinehart, Robin (2004). Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and Practice, p424}}"Shambuka (Sambika). Character in Ramayana; Shudra who performed austerities and was killed by Rama." Source
Carleas (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vidyut Aklujkar in Paula Richman (editor) Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition p95: "In V.R. [(Valmiki Ramayana)], where Sambuka myth originally occurs , Sambuka is a Shudra performing penance , and Rama has to kill him in order to avert the untimely death of a Brahmin boy in his kingdom."Source

Redtigerxyz Talk 12:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Claim 1

Gupta, Richman, and Nadkarni all support the idea that the Uttara Kanda is a later addition to the Ramayana, though Richman is explicit in considering it nonetheless legitimate. Gupta does not offer citations for his claim, but Nadkarni and Richman do. However, Nadkarni's does not seem to say what he claims, though this may be an issue of a bad scan and/or an earlier version (I could only find the 1930 version and his cite is to the 1990 version, but Uttara Kanda does not appear in the index of the 19030 version of the same book) [59]) Richman cites to herself and Goldman, arguably the leading Ramayana scholar in the west, who has published a full translation of the Ramayana. In the introduction he discusses the issues with authorship, but says only that, "Scholars of the Ramayana have also noted that much of the text shows linguistic and rhetorical differences from the rest of the poem, especially books 2 through 6, while some have even argued that the entire book is a later addition to the work and that the 'original' poem ended with Yuddhakanda and the consecration of Rama. This is a complex issue, and we will not go into the details of the arguments here." (p. 19, emphasis added)[60] I'll add Goldman to the sources list. Goldman also clarifies that "Vamliki's Ramayana", referring to the earliest extant manuscript, did include the Uttara Kanda. Id., 3-8 In the work he cites for additional discussion (footnote 10, page 19), as far as I can tell he only specifies that it was included "at a very early date"[61]. Contra Gupta, he notes that it was mentioned in another work dated "within the first two or three centuries AD" (id. page 68); Gupta suggests it at 4th or 5th century. In any case Richman still includes the Uttara Kanda in "Valmiki's Ramayana". Only Nadkarni claims explicitly that the Uttara Kanda is not a part of Valmiki's Ramayana, but I can't confirm that his cited source supports that claim. From this it seems clear that at least we can say that there is no scholarly consensus, in large part because, as Goldman and Richman point out, there are many Ramayanas. It seems there's a consensus the Uttara Kanda appears in the oldest extant manuscript we have of the Vamliki Ramayana, but that scholars agree that the text is noteably different, and many believe it was added later. One takeaway from this is to note that both Goldman and Richman use the convention of calling them "tellings" rather than "versions"; compromise language using the same convention would better align with the scholarship.

Disputed Inline Tag

The first sentence is disputed, that is clear from the discussion on this talk page. There is no good faith reason to remove the Template:Disputed_inline tag at this time, which is recommended to avoid reverting during discussion. This is separate from the content of the dispute; even if you are making changes to the first sentence, please leave the tag in place while the discussion continues to seek consensus (if you think a different inline dispute tag would be better, please replace with an alternative rather than removing it all together).

@Wareon:, please restore the tag you removed without justification in this edit. Carleas (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the {{disputed_inline}} tag following the first sentence, removed in this edit.
{{Disputed inline|First Sentence Compromise|date=January 2024}}
See the section above for information about the ongoing dispute over various versions of that sentence, including the current version.
Carleas (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123: Contrary to misleading explanation provided by Carleas, that user Wareon had actually explained why he removed the tag in the first place. Can you make the self-revert? Thanks. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin: I see that despite the RfC being closed with no consensus, the lead sentence remains option 1. It seems reasonable to include the tag to me, which was why I accepted the request. However, I will not revert if you choose to remove it, as I have no desire to get dragged into the discussion above. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC summary says "rewrite" however option 1 remains. The disputed tag should remain till discussion concludes Redtigerxyz Talk 07:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Ref to Goldman in the Second Sentence

The second sentence has a ref tag for 'Goldman2020' that is currently broken (reflist #2). The named reference should have been Goldman2022, the text containing the full citation was reverted.[62] Here is the citation:

<ref name = Goldman2022>{{cite book|last1=Goldman|first1=Robert|last2=Goldman|first2=Sally|title=The Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki: The Complete English Translation|date=2022|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=9780691225029}}</ref>{{rp|7-8}}

Carleas (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NotAGenious (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: Revert InternetArchiveBot

A friendly bot appears to have gotten a bit confused, replacing a link to a digital copy of a book hosted on archive.org with a wayback machine snapshot for the same book on googlebooks.[63] The original link is more useful, as the whole book can be borrowed for free from their collection. Can someone please revert? Carleas (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shambuka&oldid=1201469539"