Jump to content

Talk:Shambuka/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unlikely Story

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shambuka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


Edits by  Phule lulu

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

Additional references to other versions needed

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

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

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

Avindratalk 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning later interpolation as an opinion rather than fact

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

We have been over this aren't we? Pretending that you are not hearing what you have been already told is only going to make your case worse. Let me copy paste my earlier comment here too:
The majority view of "scholars" is treated as a fact on Wikipedia. Since scholarly sources are of highest quality.
But if you are still finding it difficult to understand then read this: "by now, it can be confirmly said the 'Uttarkand' of Ramayana is an interpolation of quite later period"[2]
So why we shouldn't treat it as a 'fact'?
You need to read WP:STICK. Wareon (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
At that time also, I had asked you to produce any wikipedia guideline which says that "view of many scholars" can be presented as a fact on wikipedia. But, you had failed to do at that time also and have failed to do so this time also. Until you prove your point by giving reference of any wikipedia guideline, your point is not proven. Also, the previous discussion was on yours and mine talk page so it was important to have a discussion on the article's talk page as well to try to reach to a consensus. The source [3] clearly mentions it as an opinion of most scholars rather than a fact. So, we should mention it in the similar way otherwise it violates WP:OR guideline. Jasksingh (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I would rather wait for scholarly consensus to change first, which seems impossible. WP:OLDSOURCES is irrelevant and is being misrepresented because politician Ambedkar was not a reliable source even in 1950s. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You are repeating the same point which has already been discussed above. We don't need to change the view of scholars. We need to mention it in the same way as the source mentions it to comply with wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Regarding Ambedkar, so any scholar who doesn't agrees with you becomes unreliable? Can you prove how is Gandhi and Tagore are more reliable on this subject than Ambedkar? Jasksingh (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Ambedkar was supporting a position deemed by scholars and non-scholars as false and misleading. Tagore and Gandhi are not reliable sources but at least stand on the correct side of the dispute. You need to be less desperate about this subject. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
So, you have already decided that Ambedkar's view is false and misleading? You view interpolation as a fact whereas I view it as opinion of most scholars (in the similar way source mentions it). That's the main difference. In any case, thanks for the link. I think the point "When you think there is a policy violation" is relevant and the solution suggested is Dispute resolution. I would go for that solution as same older points are being discussed again and again now. Jasksingh (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki is a great place for Bramhinical systems

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

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

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

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

Bullying by editors of Wikipedia

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

Lead changes

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

Agree with Abhinav. For being WP:NEUTRAL, let us start with the facts. Starting with "interpolation" is POV pushing. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
If you really know what "facts" actually mean, then you would need to first accept that this is an interpolation because it is a later addition to Ramayana as accepted by scholars.
Describing this as a "Shudra ascetic" from the beginning of the article gives the false impression that Wikipedia is trying to provide historicity to a subject that is just interpolation. Wareon (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


Indeed. It is in fact violation of WP:NPOV to whitewash an interpolation per WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We cannot treat this subject as a legitimate character of Ramayana but only as a interpolation to Balmiki Ramayana.
PV Kane is an eminent scholar of Sanskrit text, he calls it a "work of later interpolation" and does not find in the original Balmiki Ramanya. This scholarly source further says "Interpolation was done at a time when varna system deteriorated and got established on the basis of birth in a rigid form."[9]
NM Chakravarthy, another scholar, also notes that "Uttara Kanda" has many interpolations and the incident of the beheading of Shambuka by Rama — one such interpolation — is wholly untenable".[10]
These scholarly sources are not even cited in the main article.
@Abhinav Yd:,, instead of edit warring, review the discussion on the above section. Unless any of you can find scholarly consensus to treat this subject as authentic, you need to maintain status quo. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@ArvindPalaskar In the revision you reverted, the information that this story is an interpolation was not removed at all from the lead. Second paragraph clearly mentions "This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana." So the discussion you linked and these quotes are not relevant for my edit. I do not understand how WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL is applicable here, I did not make any new claim in the lead.
It is a fact that the story of Shambuka appears in the Uttar Kand section of Ramayana, as per [11][12]. Which is the reason this subject is notable and why these scholars are making observations on it. Now the fact that this story is an interpolation is also an information that should be mentioned in the lead if there is consensus among the scholars, which I don't disagree with, and so I did not remove it from the lead.
The purpose of my edit was to improve the opening statement and remove the redundancy. As of now, the information that this story is interpolation is mentioned twice in the lead. It appears that lead is trying to overwhelm the user with the information that the subject is an interpolation. Instead of first defining the subject, it starts with a secondary fact about the subject that it is an interpolation to the text. I also don't agree that mentioning that "Shambuka is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttar Kanda section of Valmiki Ramayana" giving false information about anything, it is a fact. It defines the subject and reason for notability.
And again since the information that this is an interpolation was not removed, I don't think these changes are "whitewashing an interpolation" (You make it sound like some crime is being commited by even saying name of Shambuka without first mentioning that it is an interpolation. But same is the case with most Hindu texts, for example as per a quote in Matsya Purana article "no Purana has a single date of composition. (...) It is as if they were libraries to which new volumes have been continuously added", doesn't mean that starting sentence about each Puranic entity should call it an interpolation.)
Also note that I also mentioned in first section that this story is mentioned in the Uttar Kanda section, most references that say, this story is an interpolation, also say Uttar Kanda is full of such interpolations, so the first sentence of the new lead already gives the information that this story is from highly interpolated part of the Ramayana.
So basically I don't think any status quo is being changed and my changes are valid. Abhinav Yd (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Read:
"The Gyuwon Sahwa (규원사화) is a forged text from the early twentieth century," see Gyuwon Sahwa.
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion... is a fabricated antisemitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan," see The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
"The drop bear (sometimes dropbear) is a hoax in contemporary Australian folklore," see Drop bear.
It is less important to note that Shambuka "is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda section of the Valmiki Ramayana," than the fact that Shambuka "is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana". The article has to make it clear from the first sentence just like it happens elsewhere. Wareon (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Wareon The story of Shambuka is not being spread by some fringe group. It is part of the mainstream Ramayana available to us today, which was maintained by Brahmins themselves. Neither is Ramayana a historical text, it is a religious text; saying that Shambuka is mentioned in Ramayana, does not tell reader anything about some historical fact; Ramayana itself is comparable to a folklore like in third example (or a hoax depending on your religion or lack thereof). Shambuka is an interpolation to the Ramayana, in same way how Mandala 1 and Mandala 10 of Rig Veda are interpolation to Rig Veda, and Purusha Sukta is interpolation to Mandala 10 of Rig Veda, and how Manusmriti is highly interpolated text. and how Uttara Kanda itself is interpolation to Ramayana. But in none of these cases, the interpolation is being brought up in first sentences; rather the subject is being defined first. Abhinav Yd (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
You don't seem to be accepting that it is actually about treating this "subject as a legitimate character of Ramayana". You are wrong yet another time when you said "Shambuka is not being spread by some fringe group". Just because there is a religious text, it doesn't mean it becomes comparable to a hoax as it depends largely over the circumstances. Nobody disagrees with the fact that Purusha Sukta and Manusmriti were modified in the later period just like nobody denies that Bible and Hadiths have many later additions but there are number of desparate fringe groups who really want people to believe that Shambuka was an outright historical person in order to strengthen their political agenda.[13] Purusha Sukta page now state it is an interpolation. Thanks for bringing it to attention. Nevertheless, you confused my message regarding how we write the lead sentence of similar subjects with particular dicussion about religious subjects in general. Read WP:NOTAFORUM and understand that repeating yourself won't help. Wareon (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Let me quote both leads, following is the current lead:
Shambuka is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana. According to the story, Shambuka, a shudra ascetic, was killed by Rama for attempting to perform tapas in violation of dharma, the bad karma resulting from which caused the death of a Brahmin's son.
This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana, being created at a later period in opposition to Brahmins. It is found in the Uttara Kanda, which is the final section of the text.
Following is the lead after my change:
Shambuka is a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda section of the Valmiki Ramayana. According to the story, Shambuka was killed by Rama for attempting to perform tapas in violation of dharma, the bad karma resulting from which caused the death of a Brahmin's son.
This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana, being created at a later period in opposition to Brahmins.
My changes to the lead are simple to understand, I saw following issues with the current lead:
1. First sentence of the lead should give a definition of the subject as per MOS:FIRST. This was not the case with current lead
2. The current Lead contains redundant information, first sentence mentions Shambuka is an interpolation in Valmiki Ramayana, and the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead also mentions This story is treated as a later interpolation to Valmiki's Ramayana
To resolve this, I moved last sentence of the second paragraph and the description of character in second sentence to the first sentence in order to create a concise definition of the subject, and removed first sentence since it was redundant.
So far, I feel that I'm unable to understand your objections to my changes. From what I understand, your objections are in two forms:
1. New lead is giving historicity to Shambuka
I think this is due to some confusion between Ramayana and History. Please re-read new lead again with neutral POV regardless to your religious beliefs to understand that it is not giving the impression that Shambuka is a historical character.
2. New lead is treating subject as legitimate character of Ramayana
The subject is indeed a legitimate character of the text that we know as Ramayana today, as per aforementioned sources of this text, which you can read yourself here [14]. Regardless of that, my changes only re-arranged existing sentences of the article, and it is clearly stated in the new lead that given story is an interpolation. So I don't understand how my changes have altered anything with regards to the position of lead on legitimacy of this character.
Can you please elaborate on why you insist that interpolation should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, is it because of some policy or guideline that I might not be aware of? or is there some other reason that you have not mentioned so far?
Purusha Sukta page now state it is an interpolation. Thanks for bringing it to attention.
The said edit [15] was reverted [16]. As evidenced, the consensus for the current lead would lead to content disputes and disruptive editing on articles relating to the Hindu texts. All the more reason to stick with MOS:LEAD Abhinav Yd (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Interpolation

There is dispute among scholars as well as religious people as to whether or not the story is an interpolation. It would be fair to say in the lede that "some", perhaps even "many", people think that the inclusion is an interpolation, but to say so definitively without definitive evidence in the very first sentence is problematic. Also, "Shambuka is an interpolation..." is bad grammar/usage. It isn't Shambuka, the person himself, but the story about Shambuka, if anything, which is an interpolation. --TrulyShruti talk • sign 01:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

See discussion just above. No scholar claims that this story is authentic. Every scholar says it is an interpolation. Wareon (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

interpolation

there is no evidence of shambhuka story isauthentic, so conclusion is - it is fake story created by some wokes for fulfill their selfishness and want to divide indians by castism👎🏻 146.196.34.8 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention in Mahabharata

User:Aman.kumar.goel, User:Dympies, kindly discuss before removing WP:RS. The Aaron book is by Anthem Press, a partner of Cambridge University Press [17]. Paula Richman, Philip Lutgendorf and Arshia Sattar, all experts on the Ramayana, have contributed to the book. Besides, Shambuka appears in other Mbh references. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

And how these sources support the information? Show the quotations. Dympies (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
See WP:EXCEPTIONAL and provide multiple reliable sources to support how Shambuka is relevant to Mahabharat or even mentioned there. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Mahabharat has been widely researched by scholars so there shouldn't be any problem in finding right sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Aman Kumar Goel, Dympies; there is nothing WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The Mahabharata has Story within a story structure. Several stories/ characters not central to Mbh story like Indra/ Vritra, Vishnu's avatars, Daksha yaga are found in the epic. The killing of Shambuka by Rama and revival of the boy by Rama is alluded here; where Shiva resurrects a young boy in a crematorium in a conversation between a jackal and vulture; which in turn told by Bhishma to Yudhishtira. See Ganguli translation of the Mbh for the full translation. "Most critics consider the translation by Ganguli to be faithful to the original text" Shambuka is also covered in Bibek Debroy (2015) translation ("thoroughly enjoyable and impressively scholarly" in Mahabharata#Translations,_versions_and_derivative_works). The free (not word-wise) translation of the Mahbharata by Buitenen, Johannes Adrianus Bernardus; Fitzgerald, James L. (1973) by University of Chicago Press in the index of characters referenced in the index mentions Shambuka mentioned in the said verse. The summary of the conversation of jackal and vulture is given on p. 500. V. Raghavan covers it in his lecture on Greater Ramayana. Aaron Sherraden has published on Shambuka in Oxford University Press [18]. The article is used as reference by an article in an academic journal (https://journal.equinoxpub.com/RST/article/view/23223) by Equinox_Publishing_(Sheffield). Please provide references that contradict the same, before removing the WP:RS. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
You are trying to claim as this story has any relevance to this character. Do you have better sources? When this verse was created, can you tell? Also what is "allulled"? Dympies (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Dympies,
  • "You are trying to claim as this story has any relevance to this character." I am not trying to claim relevance. V. Raghavan and Aaron Sherraden are explicitly state the mention in the Mahabharata in connection to Shambuka/ Rama.
  • "Do you have better sources?" All are WP:RS. Why are "better sources" required?
  • "When this verse was created, can you tell?" If you are hinting that it is an interpolation in the Mahabharata, kindly provide RS proving so. "Most critics consider the translation by Ganguli to be faithful to the original text", University of Chicago Press is based on the critical edition. Debroy is "thoroughly enjoyable and impressively scholarly". I am no scholar; but these scholars include in their Mahabharata editions.
  • Also what is "allulled": I think the following sentence in the current version is clear: "The jackal urges the family of a dead young boy to not abandon him at the cremation ground citing how Rama revives a dead Brahmin boy and slew the sudra Shambuka". Ganguli is available online; you may go through the same. Redtigerxyz Talk 09:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
There is no word like "alluled".
Why you are using a verse you are yourself unsure about? If this interpretation is so well known then why you cannot discover more sources? Dympies (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, allude. Typos corrected. Scholars are sure; aren't five sources enough? Only 1 RS is enough, but since this was termed WP:EXCEPTIONAL (which I disagree), more sources were given. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Caste

The article should have a separate section on the connection between this story and the caste system. I understand this is touchy,[19] which is why I'm proposing it here prior to making the edits, but including the section follows WP:CONTROVERSY, and seems important to explaining the character.

As discussed in the references currently cited in support of interpolation, Shambuka's story is used to justify the existence of a caste system in Hinduism (e.g. Nadkarni, reference 2 below: "The story of Shambuka in Ramayana is also cited as supporting caste system to an extreme extent."). It's mentioned in the Reception section, (in the Shudra Tapasvi and the B.R. Ambedkar essay), and as of now the only example in the Popular Culture section is dedidcated to this aspect of the story.

It appears that the connections with caste are perhaps the most important part of the story's continuing relevance, and warrant more attention in the article (see e.g. Richman, reference 3 below, p111: "Although Shambuka and Ahalya are usually considered “minor” figures within the Ramayana tradition’s large cast of characters, the kind of attention that each has received from modern South Indian writers suggests that neither character’s significance is minor."). It therefore seems appropriate to discuss caste explicitly in the lead, and to add a separate section to address this. Below is my proposed language, but I acknowledge that I am not an expert and this would benefit from an expert review:

The Shambuka story is perceived as supporting the caste system, because it positively portrays Rama's killing of Shambuka.[2] Shambuka acts outside his caste, so he is a threat to the social order.[4] Rhinehart notes that "the Shambuka story is well known to low castes, who identify with the mistreated Shambuka."[5] Similar criticisms have been made for centuries: the eighth-century play Uttararamacharita portrays Rama as regretful, and as forced by duty to kill Shambuka to uphold the social order.[3] The same points was made explicitly in B.R. Ambedkar's essay, Annihilation of Caste, in which he points to Shambuka's story as evidence that the caste system can only be maintained by the threat of lethal force. [7]
These themes have appeared in modern literary work in the form of re-tellings of the Shambuka story.[6] Multiple plays have reimagined the story, variously modifying it to depict Rama as a servant of the ruling class (T. Ramaswamy Choudary's Sambuka Vadha(1920)), to have Shambuka act as mouthpiece for anti-caste scholars (Thiruvarur K. Thangaraju's Ramayana Natakam(1954)), or to have Shambuka live and instead help the Brahmin who accused him to achieve enlightenment (Kuvempu's Shudra Tapasvi(1944)) [3]. The 1977 film Kanchana Sita, based on a 1961 play by the same name, depicts Rama's as caught in inner conflict between moksha (the desire for enlightenment) and artha (the desire for sovereign power). [1]

References

  1. Zacharias, Usha (2008). "Union with Nature: Prakriti and sovereignty in Aravindan's Kanchana Sita". In Paula Richman (ed.). Ramayana Stories in Modern South India: An Anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 99–107. ISBN 978-0-253-34988-0. in https://archive.org/details/ramayanastoriesi0000unse/page/99/
  2. Nadkarni, M. V. (2003). "Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism? Demolishing a Myth". Economic and Political Weekly. 38 (45): 4787. ISSN 2349-8846. JSTOR 4414252. Archived from the original on 12 November 2022. Retrieved 12 November 2022.
  3. Paula Richman (2008). Ramayana Stories in Modern South India: An Anthology. Indiana University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-253-21953-4. Archived from the original on 6 August 2020. Retrieved 27 April 2020.
  4. https://archive.org/details/TheHindusAnAlternativeHistorygnv64/page/n235
  5. Rinehart, Robin (2004). Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and Practice. ABC-CLIO. p. 246. ISBN 978-1-57607-905-8. https://archive.org/details/contemporaryhind0000unse_x1k0/page/246/
  6. https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780195168334/page/124/
  7. http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm

Carleas (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no objections or recommended changes, I've added this section as a subsection in "Reception". I also added the plays and films mentioned her to the "Popular Culture" section. Carleas (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
Consensus was very clear right above. Your selective WP:CANVASSING won't help. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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,[20], unreliable sources,[21][22] and self-published sources.[23]Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
It was changed in 2020 unilaterally; from 2007 to 2020 [24] [25] 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)
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)
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".[26]
  • Before that it was stable as "some versions of the Ramayana" from 2014-05-04. [27]
  • Before that it was "the Adhyatma Ramayana version of Ramayana" from 2012-07-28. [28]
  • Before that it was simply "the Ramayana" since a proper lead was first added in 2007. [29]
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)
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.[30] To the extent there is a WP:STATUSQUO, it would seem to be the "some versions" language that was unilaterally changed in August 2020,[31] 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)
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)
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)
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)

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)


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)

  • 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)
: 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    I think your concern was also Redtigerxyz's point, a point that I find reasonable. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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) [32] pp. 111 onwards; Hari Prasad Shastri's The Ramayana of Valmiki, Valmiki Ramayan by Gita Press, The Concise Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki by Swami Venkatesananda [33] (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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    This reasoning clearly violates WP:NPOV. Carleas (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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". [34]
  • Descrition moves to 'Criticism and apologetics' section by 2012-02. [35]
  • Description as "of late origin" moves to 'Source of the Story' section by 2012-07. [36]
  • Disagreement moves into the lead by 2018-11, along with a description as an "interpolation".[37]
  • The first sentence became an issue by 2020-08-02, with a change from "some versions of the Ramayana" to "original Valmiki Ramayana". [38] 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    How has the character been doctored? Carleas (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Read WP:BLUDGEON. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I will keep that in mind. Carleas (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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" [39], and "Character in Ramayana; Shudra who performed austerities and was killed by Rama." [40] Are there any similar descriptions of Shambuka that characterize him first and foremost as an interpolation? Carleas (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
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,[41] 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,[42]). 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

To my mind, something like the last stable version from 2020-08-02 [43] 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. [44] [45]). 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 [46] 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)
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)
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)
@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)
Support the version with "some" in the lede. --TrulyShruti talk • sign 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)

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)

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)
 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
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)

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.[47] 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)

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

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.[48] 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)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shambuka/Archive_1&oldid=1255952573"