Talk:Sharabha#Removal of referenced content

In my romanian language, the word for male-buck DEER is "CeRB"(pronounced "tscherb", for the female deer we have 2 words: CeRBoaica and CaPRioara-"little she goat"...CaPRa="she goat").

The similar SHaRaBa is obviously either a "special" deer, i'm talking about a FALLOW DEER("Dama Dama" is the scientific name), "cerb lopatar" ("showel deer" in my language because of the antlers shape) or is a BISON! The reason why is depicted-described in so many ways in hindu myths has to do with the fact that is not an indigenuous south asian species. The romanian-thracian word for bison is "ZimBRu", evolved into greek myths-language as "KHimaiRa/CHimeRa", a beast with the body and maned head of a lion, a goat's head rising from its back, a set of goat-udders, and a SeRPentine tail(again those 3 groups of consonants: D-S-T-Z, L-R and B-F-P-V). If we take in consideration the old portugese word "ZeBRa"(translated as "wild ass/horse") and compare it with sharaba-cerb-capra-zimbru, we can see that these common originated indoeuropean words are describing HeRBivorous hoofed animals with "SeRpent head like" tails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.

Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.

This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.

If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.

If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.

If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.

When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.

The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.

Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=sharabha&d=4989300354253554&mkt=en-IN&setlang=en-US&w=792f2221,c607bd25
• :Triggered by \bcc\.bingj\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The only thing preventing this association is that age old imaginary East/West line.

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharabha&diff=prev&oldid=637928400], User:Ankisur2, the content is referenced and it follows WP:YESPOV, stating the facts. The Shaiva POV is explained as well as the rival Vaishnava POV ("Vaishnava followers including Dvaita scholars, such as Vijayindra Tirtha (1539–95) refute the portrayal of Narasimha as being destroyed by Sharabha as ... "). This article has Sharabha slaying Narasimha which is popular, but also the less popular depiction of Narasimha killing Sharabha for POV. Your edits strangely mirror the edits of a vandalizing IP. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and states all the facts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

: User:Ankisur2 STOP removing referenced material without discussing. The Shaiva scriptures have vivid descriptions, including the "mutilation and murder". We can't just WP:CHERRYPICK and remove things from texts that one doesn't like. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). You are inducing inaccuracies too. Shiva Purana does not say Sharabha embraced Narasimha, it says Sharabha seized Narasimha. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statement saying "sharabha slaying narasimha" is a popular article is false and inaccurate in itself,as the popular myth revolving lord narasimha has no place for sharabha.There are many such loose texts in purans,which are debated and fume controversy throughout ages like the one at hand. Clearly you hold a partisan view and have an agenda for posting these passages.I suggest you use your personal blog space for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

: Note left on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

: User:Ankisur2, please present WP:RS contradicting the references or proving the references are false. Also, since Sharabha is primarily a Shaiva deity, Shaiva scriptures will have more content on him than Vaishnava ones. In the Mohini (a Vaishnava deity) article too, we state how the scriptures say that Shiva was maddened in love of Mohini, which a Shaiva may not necessarily approve of. We states all the facts, as they are. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As you might have noticed in the mediation page,I have mentioned I do not disapprove the existence of the page "Sharabha",which itself is contempt towards Vaishnava followers.The Sharabha folkore is based on Shiva and Linga puran,which are shaivate scriptures.However wikipedia is,unlike the aforementioned purans,not a shaivate scripture,or a vaishnava one for that matter.Therefore its content must be accommodating for Shaiva and Vaisnava readers alike and shouldn't contain vivid descriptions I have already objected to.An excerpt

"Sharabha then attacked Narasimha and seized him up until he was immobilized. He thus quelled Narasimha’s terrifying rage. Narasimha became a devotee of Shiva after being bound by Sharabha.[18][19] Sharabha then decapitated and de-skinned Narasimha so Shiva could wear the hide and lion-head as a garment.[1][9][20] The Linga Purana and Sharabha Upanishad also mention this mutilation and murder of Narasimha."

Ankisur2 (talk • 12:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

::If those texts are not neutral according to you, can you provide some others that have supported your view? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

'not neutral according to you". I am confused.Is the citation neutral according to you?

Also,i am not posting any separate "view". I am merely stating that even if referenced,this particular portion of the article is too vivid,unworthy of discussion on a deity and should be removed.

12:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)

:Assertions such as "too vivid,unworthy of discussion on a deity" are merely expressions of a personal opinion, and have no effect in a project which is theological neutral and not censored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

::You have said that There are many such loose texts in purans, now if they are not neutral according to you, can you provide some other texts that have supported your view? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

:::Agree vide Orangemike. These aren't valid arguments, much less reason to delete referenced content : "which itself is contempt towards Vaishnava followers" & "vivid descriptions I have already objected to". Sorry, this is a Good Article. Please discuss your proposed contentious edits here & get consensus before they can be added. AshLin (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

:::: Agree with RedTiger, Orange Mike, et al.

:::: {{reply|Ankisur2}}: Your objections that some parts of the article represent the Shaivite view is addressed by in-text attribution (which the article already does) rather than by deletion of properly sourced content. If you think that some other parts of the article need more precise attribution (hypothetical example: saying "Linga purana says..." instead of "Puranic literature says...") and such a case can be supported by reliable sources feel free to propose that on the talk page. Repeated deletion of content that you simply disagree with, on the other hand, is disruptive and needs to stop. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

::{{reply|Bladesmulti}} I am looking.Ancient hindu scriptures are not very easily available online,even less in english

17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

:: In the meantime,I want to highlight the discrepancy in the Vaishnava and Smarta view section

1."Vaishnava followers including Dvaita scholars, such as Vijayindra Tirtha (1539–95) refute the portrayal of Narasimha as being destroyed by Sharabha as they consider the Shaivite Puranas as tamasic - and thus not authoritative - based on their reading of Sattvic Puranas and Shruti texts. The refutation of the Sharabha legend along with ten other Shaivite legends is discussed in a text by Vijayindra Tirtha called Shaivasarvasvakhandanam."

Any reader curious enough to go through vijayandra tirtha's rebuttal finds a dead end,as there is no article on vijayindra tirtha or the text mentioned in context in wikipedia itself.The links redirect to very short text on refutation.It also looks like the page on Vijayindra tirtha existed in wikipedia,but not anymore.Thoughts?

2."Some regional South-Indian scriptures narrate that Narasimha took the form of Gandaberunda, a more ferocious two-headed bird-animal, who combats and destroys Shiva-Sharabha"

Its too short.Unless one visits the page on gandaberunda,the vaishnava version on the conflict is not learnt.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

::: Ankisur2, Wikipedia has a concept of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:RS. Please add RS sources to maintain the quality of a GA. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

::::: Talk cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::: Your edits are a violation of WP:RS (reliable sources), WP:OR (original research) and Wikipedia:Plagiarism (as I informed on your talk). You are copy pasting from Yahoo groups and unreliable blogs on wordpress. These are unreliable sources created by non-notable authors on the net. Urls like http://www.gururaghavendra1.org/~srsmutt/param/vijayeendra.htm#10, http://www.gsbkerala.com/vijayendra.htm do not have a word about Sharabha. "after eighteen days of struggle.Gandaberunda is described as having two heads, fearful rows of teeth, black in complexion and with wide blazing wing.As the destructive energy of Narasimha (Vishnu),it is the vAishnava paradigm of rage,like veerbhadra in shaivite scriptures." is in NOT in the earlier references and is OR. Please edit in accordance to wiki policies and familiarize yourself with them. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

::::1.In that case, http://web.archive.org/web/20120210092350/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/sarabha.html doesn't qualify as RS as well.2. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AKWvPRIkvVEC&pg=PA174&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false contains vernaculars and therefore cannot be checked for fallacy or accuracy 3.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false and http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CLN0F7GGecsC&pg=PA122&dq=sarabha&lr=&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a&cd=5#v=onepage&q=sarabha&f=false claim to quote but are not extracts from Shiva purana or Linga purana,but from independent work of authors,which are liable to misquoatation and misinterpretation. Shouldnt therefore texts like "shiva purana says" or "linga purana says" be removed?

1.In that case, http://web.archive.org/web/20120210092350/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/sarabha.html doesn't qualify as RS as well.2. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AKWvPRIkvVEC&pg=PA174&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false contains vernaculars and therefore cannot be checked for fallacy or accuracy 3.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=OoFDK_sDGHwC&pg=PA4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false and http://books.google.co.in/books?id=CLN0F7GGecsC&pg=PA122&dq=sarabha&lr=&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a&cd=5#v=onepage&q=sarabha&f=false claim to quote but are not extracts from Shiva purana or Linga purana,but from independent work of authors,which are liable to misquoatation and misinterpretation. Shouldnt therefore texts like "shiva purana says" or "linga purana says" be removed? 09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"The secondary references (Rao and Granoff) support the version in Sharabha Upanishad. Sarabha Upanishad translation (primary source) is given if any one wants to read the Upanishad further." Sharabha Upanishad translation reference provided isn't RS.Therefore,how can it be treated as a source material.Its a blog,and in the same spirit,my previous edits with references to blogspots(which you have edited out suggesting non-reliable source) should become admissible as well

11:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)

@talk You have been deleting references citing unreliable source.I have mentioned another reference above which is not RS as well.I have already notified that in the noticeboard,and my point has been approved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#references.2Fsharabha

I hope double standards will not be followed if I now remove the reference,which is not from a reliable source.Hope to reach consensus before doing that.please reply here.Ankisur2 (talk12:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

:: Copy-pasting my reply on Ankisur's talk for his "09:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)" comment with timestamp

"# The secondary references (Rao and Granoff) support the version in Sharabha Upanishad. Sarabha Upanishad translation (primary source) is given if any one wants to read the Upanishad further.

1. Elements of Hindu iconography of Gopinatha Rao is one of the most cited books on Hindu iconography. [https://www.google.com/search?q=Elements+of+Hindu+iconography+By+T.+A.+Gopinatha+Rao&oq=Elements+of+Hindu+iconography+By+T.+A.+Gopinatha+Rao&aqs=chrome..69i57.1776328j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#tbm=bks&q=Gopinatha+Rao]
2. As per wiki-policy, WP:SECONDARY references (which you are calling as "independent work of authors,which are liable to misquoatation and misinterpretation") are the references that SHOULD be used. "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." These authors and books are peer-reviewed and printed by established publishers.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)"

:: Removed the Sharabha Upanishad reference. The same text is backed by two other secondary references. The other reference that you have referring to is Elements of Hindu iconography of Gopinatha Rao. I had already answered your concerns on your talk about the references. Probably you missed to read them. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Two editors, which may be socks of each other, have persistently attempted to remove large swaths of cited text, replacing it with personal commentary, in violation of WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that some citations appear to be broken and need to be fixed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

== Akash Bhairava is Sharabheshwara ==

https://www.exoticindia.com/m/book/details/book/akash-bhairav-tantram-NZC026/

In the Bhumika (Introduction/background) section, it is clearly mentioned that Sharabheshwara is only Akasha Bhairava. He is the author (Rishi) of the Akhash Bhairava Tantra. Akhash Bhairava Tantra contains the Samrajya Lakshmi Peethika (Treaties on administration of kingdom). The word kingdom is described with the word Samrajya Lakshmi - Samrajya means kingdom, Lakshmi means wealth. So a kingdom is shown as an subject similar to material wealth which needs to be maintained like otherwise it will get destroyed. It is a training manual for prince and princesses. So this page is a super-topic for this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akash_Bhairav ; they can be linked in the appropriate way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.133.6 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sharabha/1}}