Talk:Kinnara

Merger

Kinnari is, as far as I know, just the feminine version of Kinnara, so I think they should be merged. Kotengu 05:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the two articles and tried to keep most of the information intact. Anything that was overlapping, I removed. And I move some things around to make the article flow smoother. It's still an unsourced article, so I don't know if all the information there is accurate. I hope I did well with the merge. If not, it can always be edited again. --Cantharellus 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinnara turn into vampire?

In Philippines subsection it was said that the cheated heartbroken kinnara will turn into blood sucking Mandurugo vampire. The cited references provided only mentioned Mandurugo as vampire. It mention nothing about its connection to Kinnara (its Kinnara origin). Other refs in Philippines susbsection also mention nothing about kinnara, it mention only about Indian in the Filipino. I think Parashurama007 retrieve [1] and only add refs [2] to falsely appear and help JournalmanManila edit [3] was legit and based on solid refs. However, after I examined the content of the refs, it mention nothing to support JournalmanManila/Parashurama007 edits. Therefore I put the citation need tags that later Parashurama007 removed [4]. Since he failed to support his edits with solid and valid references, I will erase the doubtful section about Kinnara turn into vampire section, which I think is another fantasy added to this already mythical content. Any objection should be addressed in this talkpage first. Thank you. —  Gunkarta  talk  02:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@User :Gunkarta I have looking now the references and the Statement, based on what have you been reviewed yes you are right this section which is mentioned Mandurugo as a Kinnara itself was needed to be review , i aint supporting any user's idea i cheked this article to see if they had references as i added an un referenced tags on the sub sections with no sources or even citations but now its had fix i will check for which the sources are legit. Palasulam-ang ^talk

Try to find legit references, and please do not try to trick us into carelessly overlooked doubtful edits and helping JournalmanManila edits by providing false irrelevant refs that after careful examination had mention nothing about kinnara. Btw, your action, modus operandi, and weird attachments to pre-Hispanic Philippines articles kind of suspiciously similar and reminds me to someone that has multiple sock puppets accounts. Be careful, I'm watching you. —  Gunkarta  talk  02:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@User :Gunkarta i don't understand what are you trying to say in this point but why do you accusing me of Modus operandi, what do you mean by it ? i just put a un-referenced tag-s (Maintenance tags) in un-sourced statements, because we need a supporting references on any statements! (which is previously unsourced) and that Philippine subsection was needed to be review as what i said and what you think also? it would be clean up as if needed, if its legit keep , and if non-academic remove it what's wrong with it? but thanks anyway to informing me of that source is academic or not you got my attention on it and we have a duty to watch any articles.( WP:BITE ) Palasulam-ang ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not mind you put the "citation need" tags on Indonesia, Thailand, and Tibet subsections, that actions actually has made me to add valid refs in those sections thus improved the quality of this article. However, what I do not appreciate is you added false refs that mention nothing about kinnara and removed the "citation need" tags in Philippines subsection. Let me put it bluntly my dear. It means I'm suspecting you as a sockpuppet of JournalmanManila. One of the typical modus operandi of a sockpuppet is to return to the "crime scene" by retrieved edit, supports, or restore the reverted edits of its blocked puppet master or its other avatar socks. Any other efforts to retrieve, supports or help the previous blocked sock masters will only confirming my suspicion. And your effort by provides false refs just make it worse. —  Gunkarta  talk  08:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kinnara. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925180148/http://mmtimes.com/2010/feature/509/academy02.html to http://www.mmtimes.com/2010/feature/509/academy02.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070822213342/http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/myanmartimes/no68/myanmartimes4-68/Timeouts/6.htm to http://www.myanmar.gov.mm/myanmartimes/no68/myanmartimes4-68/Timeouts/6.htm

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) 15:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Philippines

Here's my concern. Laszlo Legeza, "Tantric Elements in Pre-Hispanic Gold Art," Arts of Asia, 1988, 4:129-133.

Why we have to sacrifice the quality of the sources? just because some of us where sort of... Afraid to a Sock? (Kufarhunter (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC))

Kufarhunter Because you're not supposed to be editing, you're blocked, remember?? (N0n3up (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC))

Differences

@Gotitbro: Nothing such order is prescribed that Hindu first. Kinnara and Kinnaris, male and females are in Buddhism only, in hindu they are only kinnaras who are paradigmatic, thay themselves are husband ands and wives,they have no genders. see the Mahabharata quote in the article. No need to capitalize as they are common names.JaMongKut (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you know anything about precedent and standard order? Check out any article for an Abrahamic figure/entity, e.g. Solomon [Jewish, Christian, Islamic], or most other articles on Indian religions the order usually followed is Hindu, Buddhist, Jain no need to break from the norm here unless you are specific about POVPUSHing a particular religion here which is the case with most of your edits. The Mahabharata quote is expository and explanatory, the term kinnari very much exists in Hinduism. If you are not familiar with what paradigmatic means or what concepts in other religions are, please don't engage in needless diatribe and familiarize yourself with the topics first. You have been already reverted over your edit-warring here by other editors as well. And do you even read edit summaries or check out what was edited before reverting? I specifically lower capitalized the common name. I am afraid if you continue with such disruptive behavior (which has been noted by multiple experienced editors), you are only looking edit restrictions from the topics or a ban. Gotitbro (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: There's nothing such guidelines or any policies on Wikipedia as far I've read. Please understand. And also, I've created the talk for duscussion, but you edited it without the talk reaching to conclusion. Hence, let the discussion come to an end first then edit. Please, Do not start edit war. You are reverting yourself without a conclusion for discussion, but saying me instead to follow the policies.

Please understand what precedent, norms and standard order are. Not everything is covered under guidelines, using that as a cop out for your POV is no excuse. And you are the one who needs to start a discussion and reach a consensus not other editors who notice your problematic edits. I am not going to cite the relevant policies to you again and again and if you continue to act oblivious to them this would need to taken up at WP:ANI. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"Not everything is covered under guidelines", this what the excuse you are giving, for your no reason conflict or the point of order that make no sense, which you are doing with me. And you are reverting without consensus. Also you have also exceeded the limit of 3R rule.JaMongKut (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: You have not addressed any of the concerns about the general WP:PRECEDENT on wiki of the Hindu-Buddhist order, male/female dichotomy in both the religions. Yet you insist on POVPUSHing your highly disruptive edits. Please don't. Neither are you following the basic guidelines of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO. Yet here you are accusing others of edit warring. Make yourself familiar with what Wikipedia is, than lecturing others about guidelines. You have been in dispute with multiple editors ever since your first edit, this does not reflect good on you nor are your edits going to be taken in good faith if you continue as such. Gotitbro (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I always try to asuume good faith, that's why I very few times call it POV pushing, although they were. Don't you think you are the one who is doing POV pushing, when I first edited the article to have the difference in two. When some other editors edited the article, Don't you think you were the one saying, Hinduism should be first and all other after that. I will suggest you to avoid such arguements that Hinduism should be first. You're not only wasting times in such arguements, but also disturbing other editors in their works. Also not giving the proper reason for your reason, but reverting everytime. I've also many time asked you to please discuss on the article not on editors. If you still find, Your POV pushing is right , I'll ask you to let's have consensus in Administrator's noticeboard and will ask them for is there any such policy or at least generalization or al least this POV is valid.

Obviously the statemnt The Kinnara and Kinaari are most beloved mythological creatures in Buddhist tradtions" doesn't mean Kinnaris are npot in Hinduism. The statement only conveys in Buddhist traditions they are most beloved than other mythological creatures. It only shows their status in Buddhism, the statement has to do nothing with Hinduism. JaMongKut (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)