This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
I've restored the template. The reason the category "Hindu mythology" was removed was not because it does not apply to the article, but rather because it is already in that category by virtue of being in a subcategory of it. So of course the template does apply, as Yaksha is an element of Hindu mythology. See WP:CAT about why we do not put an article in both a category and a subcategory. The short reason is that the higher level categories would become too crowded to be useful... Of course, there are some exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them. IPSOS (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
IPSOS, I appreciate your attempts to source this article but listing Encyclopedia Britannica with no edition date or ISBN is not acceptable sourcing per WP:V. Plus hostile edit summaries are usually ineffective in eliciting compliance from other editors who are truly working toward the betterment of Wikipedia. This article, IMHO, puts undue emphasis on the Hindu aspects of a term that originated in folk mythology and utilizes only a dictionary on Hindu terms and and a link to a brief excerpt to an encyclopedia article that mentions very little of the information in the article. Let us both hope the article's accuracy through the use of relevant source material. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from rude edit summaries. I have used the talk page and I wish you would do the same. I am concerned about the bias in this article and wish a discussion rather than your abitrary article changes and rude edit summaries.Sincerely, Mattisse 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse, my edit summaries have not been intended to be rude, nor have they been. My changes are not arbitrary. 1) You should never, ever remove references. Another editor used that reference as a source. By removing it, you make that editor appear to be a plagiarist. Fix the reference by all means, but do not remove it. 2) Concerns about the sources do not get noted in little notes on the article page. They get brought up on the talk page. From your edit history, I'm absolutely sure you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know both of these things. IPSOS (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
IPSOS, the words "Encyclopedia Britannica" were not a reference for the article, as I am sure you know. Removing two unlinked words is not the same as removing a source that can be verified by the user, which is the point of citing sources per WP:V, [[WP:]] and WP:CITE. I believe you know this also as I believe you know that edit summaries that direct comments to the editor rather than describing the edit in a neutral manner are considered rude. I am hoping that this vein of interaction will not continue as it is a waste of time. Improving the article by adding material with proper sourcing, removing unsourced material and unprofessional entries is more helpful to Wikipedia. I hope we are both prefer to improve articles rather than criticize editors. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you. The words "Encyclopedia Britannica" informed what source was used. As I am sure you know, almost everyone now uses the online edition of Britannica. Since it was not an inline citation or a quote, it didn't really matter what the specific edition was in any case. You could have found the proper link and added it, as I did. It's almost as if you are intentionally trying to be disruptive. For your sake, I hope I am wrong about that. IPSOS (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed "Burmese: ႀေ-ဴကba-lu" from the lead paragraph as it makes no sense. The Burmese script given doesn't correspond even remotely to "ba-lu". The first two characters together make a sound similar to "say", the third one (after the hyphen) is a vowel letter of Mon (not Burmese at all), and the last letter is "k(a)". I've tried to find the correct Burmese name for yakshas, but I can't find anything in my print dictionaries, and on the web all I find is mirrors of this page. Angr (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. The term is ဘီလူး[bìlú]. Angr (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel it might be worthy of note, that Brahman appears to the gods in the form of a Yaksh in the Kena Upanishad? I feel this is somehow notable. AaronCarson (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)