From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Weird editing[edit]

In the two last edits User:Bakasuprman removed the initial clarifying line and simulateously adds a link clearly backing up the removed passage. Why? --Soman 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can prove the Ramayan is clearly false, and can provide any evidence to disprove its historicity, the "clarifying line" serves no purpose. No such terms are used for biblical figures, so Hinduism should not serve as your soft target.Bakaman 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know the English translation of what happens in football (i.e. soccer for people in the US) when you score a goal in your own court. Trying to pass of Ramayana is a source for historical information is, of course doomed to fail. Try rewriting the intro of the Ramayana article from its current "ancient Sanskrit epic attributed to the poet Valmiki and is an important part of the Hindu canon (smṛti)."
As per Biblical figures, check out the following wordings in the Jesus article "Christians predominantly believe that Jesus is God incarnate, who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity with his death." (not saying 'Jesus is the son of God, period') and "As few of the details of Jesus' life can be independently verified, it is difficult to gauge the historical accuracy of the Biblical accounts. The four canonical gospels are the main sources of information for the traditional Christian narrative of Jesus' life.". In short your argument fails. --Soman 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no little "biblical mythology" clarifying line in the Amram article and other comparatively similar articles, the argument stands, and your attempts to cleanse the cat fail.Bakaman 20:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So then change that wording. As funny as it might sound, i do not have all 1000000+ articles of wikipedia in my watchlist. Personally, having had to pass through years of Biblical indoctrination, I have no memory at all of this figure. Wikipedia is based on the reliance on reliable sources, a fact that by necessity provokes separation between science (i.e. what can be proved through empirical research) and religion (what is believed). --Soman 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for either wording to have any sort of clarifying line. That is actual secularism, treating all religious articles the same.Bakaman 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
But of course that would create inconsistency beyond all limits. All articles dealing with religious, mythological or fictional characters needs to have a clarfication. I'm quite distrubed that religious doctrine has been copypasted into wikipedia without rewriting in a variety of Biblical character articles. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of a particular group or community, its usage transcends national and religious borders. If an article presents an intro like 'Fitzwilliam Darcy is a Gentleman' (whatever that actually means), then it is implied that Darcy would actually be a real, living person that, in addition to being made of flesh and blood, would be a Gentleman. Thus there is a need to include a clarification in the very first paragraph of the article that the article deals with a literary character (as opposed to a historical character). --Soman 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, there are of course problems involved in terms of characters who one hand figure in fictional and/or religious literature and one hand are historical characters. There are figures who actually existance is claimed by some, and disputed by others (like King Arthur). In such cases the debate on the differences between historical research and epical literature needs to be discussed, and different viewpoints presented. --Soman 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There are enough allusions in the first two paragraph to the amorphous nature of his existence.Bakaman 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. The word Ikshvaku means "Sugarcane". Some scholars have pointed out that the legends of Ikshvaku and Sumati may have their origin in the Southeast-Asian myth of the birth of humanity from a Sugarcane.[1]Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Librorum Prohibitorum,

I dont know what is your intention in adding a weird line on meaning of Ikshavakus. Why do you pick some odd author, do you have any strong evidence like whether is it accepted by majoritarian historians. Most of Hindus even doesnt know what you have written.

If some odd source is criteria, then why dont you include the theory of BBC on Jesus christ (which was aired long back and it was related to sex). I do see Christian WP writters quoting BBC everywhere but I never saw anyone of those qouting that particular theory of BBC on jesus. Rules should be same for all kind of people. Please add that theory in Jesus WP as it was published by the most prestigious authenticated BBC news. then we can discuss on your new meaning of Ikshvakus.

Thnx Indianprithvi (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Elst, Koenraad (1999). Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate. Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 81-86471-77-4. ; Sergent, Bernard: Genèse de l'Inde, 1997.


Questions about the merge proposal:

  • Is there a citation for Ikshvaku being identified with Rishabha in Jain mythology?
  • Is there a citation for Rishabha being the founder of Ikshvaku dynasty, as opposed to a member?

I have seen these two mentioned as facts in this and related pages, but couldn't verify them on a quick check. Answering these will help deteremine if and where the article should be merged. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here please have a look -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That is not really a good source, since it is written in an in-universe style and directed towards devotees rather than treating the subject neutrally as a scholar would. However I think it is ok for now to present a Jain POV till better sources are found.
I am still undecided about the merger, but think that the articles need a thorough clean up to remove uncited content and have the rest match what the sources actually say, before decisions about possible mergers can be made. Will comments more at Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)