Talk:Sambandar

Extra information

122.163.47.240 - please discuss the sources and the relevance of the information you want to add here, since two editors are removing your additions at present. Please check that information about Campantar is available in a published source and that it is notable enough to appear in wiki. If so, there is probably already an article that contains information about tufts, Uma etc. Then you can make sure that the information can be found from this page by adding links. Redheylin (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To redheyli:

THE INFORMATION INSERTED WRT SAMBANDAR HAS ENOUGH REFERENCES AND IS VERY CLEARLY TRUE. I SHALL NOT BE PASTING THE SAME IN WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE OF THE VERY OBVIOUS AND STRAIGHT FORWARD NATURE OF THE SAME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.46.102 (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

and from my talk page:

REGARDING THE PAGE ON SAMBANDAR MR.REDHEYLIN, THERE ARE A PLETORA OF MATERIAL FOR MY WRITINGS AND THE FACTS ARE ACCURATE AND TRUE. CITATIONS NOT REQUIRED.

Please click on this [1] so you may see from the first paragraph that citations are required. Then this[2] so you may see that repeatedly inserting this material is unacceptable. Redheylin (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The following is duly noted:

Dear Mr.Redheylin, your page does give weasel statements about verifiability and citations but it is very clear that wikipedia neither has the capability, the jurisdiction , the legal rights, the motivation or any other tool and processes to establish the accuracy of information provided here with. This is very much evident from the pernicious set of lies and clearly fabricated, manufactured citations provided herewith in wikipedian pages like en.wikipedia.com/iyer/vadama.

Infact wikipedia is not allowed to trade detailed info because of copyrights issue. Inasmuch as i have been graceful and merciful enough to give you unadulerated facts for trade but 99% of wikipedia material is lies and fabricated citations.

Thus eventhough there are enough real truthful documents backing my writings, i would not be supplying the same as i want to prevent attempts at their being traced, destroyed or fabricated to suit some agenda. I say that i have said this. A copy of links ha been passed to FBI for analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.56.108 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

NB: The above seems to me to border on an implicit legal threat. This comment has accordingly been reported to WP:LEGAL. See here -- Muzhogg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Material without citations

As the edit history shows, there have been a large number of edits from various IP addresses with substantially the same intent. The flags I added to the page have finally managed to draw the above comment. Suggestions for procedure welcome. Redheylin (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty straightforward, I think, per WP:VERIFY; if, as the anonymous IP claims, there are plenty of references for it, there should be no problem in providing one of them. Until then, the material shouldn't be re-added to the article. I notice that the alternate name of the city mentioned here is not mentioned in the article on Sirkazhi. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Clay Collier - see particularlyWP:BURDEN in WP:VERIFY. Should such attempts continue, you might wish to consult WP:SEMI and WP:ROUGH. Good luck. -- Muzhogg (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: given the claimed report of this issue to the FBI (by the same unregistered user? - see above) I have lodged a report at the admin notice board. -- Muzhogg (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: already moved Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Thirugnana Sambandar → Thirugnana Sambandar —

I propose a change of name to Thirugnana Sambandar. This to a spelling that is close to the original Tamil pronunciation of திருஞானசம்பந்தர்.

Campantar is archaic and is rarely used. Also, 'ca' in Campantar will be read as 'kae' as in the word 'camp' and not as 's' in sample.

A Google search also reveals usage of Thirugnana Sambandar except for this wikipedia entry. http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=thirugnanasambandar&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 rams81 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ramana. Please note. The reason (stated in the page histories) for the present spelling is that there has formerly been widely differing approach to spelling Tamil names and terms so, in order to prevent this, all Nayanar and related pages have been altered to follow the orthography used by a single authority, G Flood. Therefore it is counterproductive, as mentioned, to alter a single page without seeking consensus - the same spelling should apply to all pages. Your "requested move" requires time, and preferably consultation with involved editors. Please revert yourself until you have presented a single authority for Tamil-English transliteration, gained agreement and undertaken to alter ALL such pages yourself. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redheylin

Should the names in Wikipedia be written as per what a common man uses and is familiar of, or as dictated by some academic rules which the lay user does not know. A person reading the word Campantar will not connect with the personality Thirugnana Sambandar. So what is the point in orthographic accuracy?

I am listing out a bunch of links from reputed newspapers,

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2004/03/12/stories/2004031202200400.htm

http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/12/14/fea22.asp

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/tabloids/classical-dance-tribute-chennai-344

http://www.hindu.com/mp/2004/08/02/stories/2004080201930400.htm

And also a published book,

http://books.google.com/books?id=oScFAQAAIAAJ&q=thirugnana+sambandar&dq=thirugnana+sambandar&hl=en&ei=0zl9TLbyGsyUnAeBg6ydCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6wEwBjgK

rams81 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can someone uniformly change all these strange sounding spellings for Tamil saints: Campantar, cundarar, etc. This is ridiculous. The names should be written according to how most Tamils write it *and* pronounce it. Sundarar himself would recognize his name as "cundarar". And, there are literally thousands of living people in India who write the name in English as Sundar/Sundaram/Sambandar/Sambandam etc etc. This is an insult to the saints themselves to write it all in this ridiculous and confusing fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.200.48 (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I support the move to rename this article as Sambandar. But don't seem to get enough supporters or people who speak the language of the common man. I am not a wikipedia expert to start a vote and decide. :( rams81 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits discussion

I tried WP:DRN, but it was closed as premature procedure. I still do not know what is going on with this article, but I don't want this reported to WP:3RR noticeboard. --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, in response to the recent major changes by multiple different editors here and on a few other pages, I had an SPI run, which turned up about 7 likely sockpuppets, now all blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sivamrutham123). However, the CU who conducted the SPI said that there are several other possible related user not blocked, and the underlying IP range is active. Thus, the disruption might not immediately stop. I've watchlisted the article, but if the disruption continues and I don't act, feel free to let me know directly--semi-protection may be necessary. The thing is, it may well be that some of what this user(s) want to add may be acceptable, but only if it's properly cited and they actually engage in discussion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That didn't last long. I blocked another sock, and semi-protected the article for a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Name

Some time ago I worked through all "Nayanar" related articles, unifying orthography to an authoritative source - Gavin Flood. Since then I have watched many unreferenced changes happen and "corrected" them. The last couple of months I was away, and now it is back to zero - indiscriminate use of different spellings (Sambandar'Campantar, Tiru-/Thiru etc.) across the whole piste, as well as the use of honorifics, unreffd statements, religious propaganda etc. Most editors take no notice of consistency - they will even make the opening version different from the title, let alone check for other instances of a word - and they differ among themselves. Still there seems to be a feeling that "S" should be used, and a preference for "Th" among Tamil speakers (or should that be THamil??). If some alternative source can be found closer to the Indian idea of English spelling (!!) that might help. Otherwise I am minded to revert the whole lot. It has not been possible to engage flyby editors in meaningful wikipedianism. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Redheylin, I believe we had this discussion related to the spelling of Sambandar. Gavin Flood may be an authoritative source on the life and biography of Nayanars but not on linguistics to the best of my knowledge. The spelling Cumpantar is archaic and is not used anymore. I am placing for your reference a few links from newspapers, "The Hindu" and "Daily News" http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/10/stories/2010041066641000.htm http://www.dailynews.lk/2001/11/23/fea08.html http://www.dailynews.lk/2011/06/02/fea13.asp Further, according to International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration, which is followed in Wikipedia, Indic name of சம்பந்தர் will be translated as Sambandar not cumpantar. I presume you can read Tamil, in which case, cumpantar will be written in Tamil as கம்பண்டர் or कम्पंतर in Devanagiri. rams81 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

On the same page, why do you think Saiva should not be spelt as Caiva, Siddantha as Ciddanta? rams81 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The matter is the "transliteration" - rather than "spelling" - of Tamil terms. I am not insisting upon Flood's version (although he is a (recent and current) authoritative source) - rather I am asking that anybody who wishes to alter this version do what I did and bring forward a single, comparably authoritative academic source: having done this please methodically alter ALL references throughout the entire field to this system of transliteration INCLUDING all titles, rather than producing sheer confusion on one's own authority. An English-language authoritative source verifiably citing Sundara, Sambandar and the rest will be needed. A well-referenced, if archaic, consistency is preferable to a lazy dog's dinner (such as THirugnana but Tirumulai)! Before you wrote; "Should the names in Wikipedia be written as per what a common man uses and is familiar of, or as dictated by some academic rules which the lay user does not know." Well, the anser is; on wikipedia the second option every time, without question - those are the wiki rules. I do understand what it looks like in Sanskrit, that's not the point. On the other hand, proper use of capital letters would be sort of welcome. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Small note Redheylin: you're wrong on the last part: we do not look at only academic sources when deciding names. Rather, we look at a wide variety of high quality sources, including newspapers, books published by good presses, academic journals, other encyclopedias, high quality (WP:RS compliant) websites, etc. You are right that we don't just take someone's word about what the common name is. But, on the other hand, we don't exclude sources simply because they're not academic. It's a tricky issue; WP:COMMONNAME is the best guideline, though in many cases editorial consensus is a big factor, using dispute resolution when necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I doubt any periodical is going to give instances of every term, thus providing the needed consistency, nor will it outweigh the standard Cambridge University account, providing authority and verifiability. But certainly any comprehensive and reliable English treatment will do. I prefer that such is found. I also prefer that people actually bother to follow their own rules, not making single random changes, ignoring punctuation and failing to give references, but working through the entire wiki field. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So, for instance, the three news articles cited just above: the first uses "Thirugnanasambandar" (one word), the second uses "Thirugnana Sampanthar", "Thirugnanasampanthar" and "Gnana Sampanthar" (nayanmar) and the third uses "Thirugnana Sampanthar Nayanar". How is this going to help? Redheylin (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In theory, we should try to figure out the most commonly used name. In practice, that's probably almost impossible. In the meantime, I do support using the name used in the higher quality source; in the future, if someone else wants to do some more serious investigation, and can present reliable data showing that a different name is more commonly used, then we can switch it. Given the mess in the sources (not all that unusual for English transliterations of personal names from other languages), it may be impossible to find the one "most common" name. Article names can be a tricky business (we've had numerous issues go before Arbcom just on how to name article), and involves a combination of looking for overall "common-ness" as well as trying to weigh the quality of sources. So, like I said, for now, I think we should use the academic source, until someone can produce good evidence that other sources use a different name more commonly. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing you are overlooking is that the common Wikipedia user, will not even notice the difference between "Thirugnanasambandar", "Thirugnana Sampanthar", "Thirugnanasampanthar" and "Gnana Sampanthar" or just "Sampanthar" but will definitely feel odd or even feel it is an article about someone else if it is spelt as "Cumpantar". By the way, based on Qwyrxian's suggestion of WP:COMMONNAME, I did use a Google search for how the name is commonly spelt. Here are the results. (Of xourse, I did exclude results from Wikipedia as requested by the Wikipedia policy)

Sampanthar - About 85,200 results (Incidentally, this is the spelling used by the site http://www.shaivam.org/nachamb4.html which happens to be a large compilation of articles and links related to Shaivism, though may not be considered authoritative by you)

Sambandar - About 77,300 results

Thirugnanasambandar - About 18,400 results

Campantar - About 10,100 results

Thirugnanasampanthar - About 7,410 results

Thirugnana Sampanthar - About 1,500 results

Gnana Sampanthar - About 103 results

You may be aware that the words "Thiru Gnana" are epithet and need not be repeated for every instance of his name in a Wikipedia article. rams81 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"One thing you are overlooking is that the common Wikipedia user, will not even notice the difference between "Thirugnanasambandar", "Thirugnana Sampanthar", "Thirugnanasampanthar" and "Gnana Sampanthar" or just "Sampanthar"" Sorry - will not notice? Because... they speak Tamil and recognise its honorifics and its Sanskrit borrowings? Of course! Every common wiki-user is a Tamil Saivite. In fact, they do not really need these articles at all! You also write; "You may be aware that the words "Thiru Gnana" are epithet" - Yes! they should not be part of the title. We do have Queen Victoria - bad enough - but not Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Deo Gratia Fidei Defensor, Empress of India. Redheylin (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

We do have Queen Victoria but no Mahatma Gandhi. Does the article refer her as "Queen Victoria" in every instance in the article? Besides what is your point? rams81 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Those results only give the vaguest information; also you didn't conduct your searches properly (based on the way Google handles multiple words, etc.). In any event, web hits is the least important, and generally ignored result, because it find all sorts of unrelated things, including people who just put things in keywords, Wikipedia mirrors, etc. Plus, how many of those results are actually related to this article? At a bare minimum, you need to be doing Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar searches, and you need to get some feel for how many of the hits are actually related to this specific topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Qwyrxian, Please explain why you say "I did not conduct my search properly"? Do you presume that I did not enclose "Thirugnana Sampanthar" inside quotes while searching? Is there a different way to exclude Wikipedia results other than adding ' -Wikipedia' to the search query? Why do you think, I will not be reviewing the search results for obvious Wikipedia mirrors and other sites that tend to copy Wikipedia entries? I went by WP:COMMONNAME according to your suggestion. Now, you are bringing in WP:GOOGLEHITS, which is about the notability of a particular topic and not about various spellings on common name. In the meantime, I will try searching Google books, news and scholar searches. rams81 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here I am with some results. Google News search (including archives) of the common spellings of Thirugnana Sambandar reveals the following results. Sambandar (86), Thirugnanasambandar (57) and all others including Campantar < 10 results. The major proponent of the spelling Sambandar & Thirugnanasambandar is the leading Chennai based South Indian newspaper, The Hindu. Can we use this to change the spelling to Sampandar. I tried clarifying earlier to editor Redheylin, that Thirugnana is a epithet that need not be repeated in every instance of the name, however, he did not seem to understand that and sarcasm was his response. rams81 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I really think we need a single source that includes the whole field. That's why I used Flood.Now again the whole thing is a mess, with different conventions on every page. Can someone bring forward a book in English on the Nayanars that uses a more-preferred spelling? Rams81 - I am not being sarcastic: you must understand that these wiki pages are not an icon for Tamil enthusiasts; they are intended to give knowledge to others around the world. You brought forward several different conventions as though they were the same - but they are not recognisable as the same. The honorific "Tirugnana" ought not be part of the title: see MOS:HONORIFIC And no, one cannot use a source that says "Sambandar" to change the spelling to "Sampandar". Redheylin (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin, as explained before, we do not pick a single source to choose names. I have one question for Ramananrv123: are you certain that the sources are referring to the person who is the subject of this article, and not someone else with the same name, or a place named after him, etc.? I'm just making sure. Assuming those sources, generally, refer to this person, it looks like we should change the name to "Sambandar", though it would be nice to see searches in GOogle Scholar, or to get some generally feeling for what spelling quality books on the subject use. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

QXyrxian, Yes, the articles in The Hindu that I have used above are about the saint Sampandar, or refer to him in the context of Hindu religion. Since the results are in the order of a 100, I did go and review the results again. I should admit, about a 5% of the results do indeed refer to people named after the saint or places named after him. rams81 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the results from Google Scholar: Sampandar (221) & Campantar (178). rams81 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramananrv123, you're chaning what you said. Before, you said the name most commonly used was "Sambandar"; now you're saying it's "Sampandar". Which is it? If the sources use both, you need to break down the difference between the two. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my typo. The results were for Sambandar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&q=sambandar rams81 (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

//we do not pick a single source to choose names.// If not, then the only way to get consistency over these articles will be to self-transliterate according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_Tamil#Transliteration_conventions User:Qwyrxian,youo then go on to say you want; "=to get some generally feeling for what spelling quality books on the subject use". The quality book I used in order to pull all the articles on the Nayanars into consistency was the current Cambridge textbook "Hinduism" by Gavin Flood. But some Tamils object to the transliteration system he uses. 15:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If a quality book is needed for standardising the spelling of Nayanars, will this one work? Indian religions: a historical reader of spiritual expression and experience, by Peter Heehs published by New York University. The page 305 of the book gives the spellings of Nayanars as Sambandar & Sundarar? Besides as a foreign born Indologist, who chose to live in Tamil heartland, he is phonetically more sound (sorry for the pun) in the way Tamil names are spelt. rams81 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Redheylin, I apologize if I'm not explaining this properly. We have a policy on how to name articles. It is scattered across a few places, but the main one is WP:Article titles. In short, that policy says that we choose the name most commonly used in English reliable sources about the subject. If there is clearly one name that is more commonly used, that is the name we use for our article. Period. You can't get around that by claiming that the majority of sources are "wrong", or that we need to set a standard across Wikipedia for transliterations, etc. In cases where there are no or almost no English sources that discuss the subject, it becomes more complicated (I know that WikiProject Japan has to deal with this problem a lot). But that is not the case here: we have hundreds of English sources about this person. Thus, we must use the name that those sources use. If the difference were very close, then we would have to consider things like ranking the sources; if there were other concerns (like WP:NPOV), that might also be relevant. But that does not seem to be the case here. We have one name that is used substantially more than others (I'm assuming Ramananrv123's results are correct; if you have different results feel free to present them). Debating about which single source to use is simply a waste of time, because it has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your full explanation. I can now say with the greatest clarity that I have no idea why you made it. I have not argued for a particular spelling but for consistency throughout articles and among articles on Tamil subjects, particularly the religion of the Nayanars. Such consistency is an important value in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Previously there was such consistency, based upon a scholarly source: now there is not. One way to achieve it is to use a single source. It is not possible to determine the *most popular* spelling from any single source. It is possible to determine the preferred Wikipedia Tamil transcription style from the guideline quoted above. Similarly the guideline of avoiding honorifics should be observed regardless of popularity. Edits to the spelling of any term should be carried through all related pages. It would be good if you folks could come to a fair conclusion and get the work done. Redheylin (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that we should use the name Sambanadar throughout this article? Or are you proposing some other name? If you agree, then I'll go ahead and move the article and make all of the changes in the text here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sambandar will be as good as any - so it will have to be "Sundarar"... he will be mentioned on other related pages too. I already spent days - I am not keen to spend more at the behest of folks who can't be bothered themselves, so I'd just revert. The most important related articles are listed in the "Tiruvaram" box on the article page. There are a couple of hundred linking pages. Thanks for taking care of the vandal before, and for your interesting remarks. Hope it all turns out as neat as I left it after people had just used different spellings on different pages for years. Redheylin (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am ok with Sambandar. Personally, I wanted the archaic, unrecognizable "Campantar" and "Cuntarar" changed to spellings recognisable to normal users. Unless for the debate here, I would not have known the general usage patterns. Thanks to both Redheylin and Qwyrxian. rams81 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we ok with the spelling of Sampandar and Sundarar? Who is going ahead on implementing the changes? rams81 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh - I suggest, just screw everything up and leave it for someone else to sort out. Redheylin (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the article and changed the lead/infobox. Changing incoming links is quite a chore; it can be done, though no need to rush to it (the old name still redirects here). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Sambandar a Brahmin?

Sambandar was a saivaite saint and was not a Brahmin. What are the sources that say that he was a Brahmin? If he was a Brahmin he would have composed the poems in Sanskrit and not in Tamil. And Brahmins normally wear thread across their chest but in ancient bronze and stone statues of Sambandhar the thread across his chest is not seen. Please understand the caste system in India is very sensitive and please do not conclude the caste without proper reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkumarbalakrishnan (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sambandar is a brahmin and you can see the evidence from the 'periya puranam' of Chekkilar. It is not necessary that brahmins should write only sanskrit poems. Both Sanskrit and Tamil languages are divine and created by gods. The main purpose of Sambandar being a brahmin writing in tamil, is that to spread the shaivism and glory of Shiva, ultimate supreme to all the people, so that even a person who is not educated can able to understand the peom verses. Reliable source is - Periya Puranam. Holy thread which is a Punool can be seen in all the Sambandar idols throughout the saiva temples in tamil nadu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.8.123.18 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

"Please change The legend goes on to state that with Sambandar's consent, the king massacred around 8000 Jains to NONE. V.malayaman (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

"please change He declined due to knowledge that he would soon die to He declined due to knowledge that he would soon attain mukthi." V.malayaman (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as WP:EUPHEMISM - Arjayay (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

change "Sambandar died with Shiva in the Tamil month of "Vaigasi" at the age of sixteen at his wedding". to "Sambandar realized Mukthi in the Tamil month of "Vaigasi" at the age of sixteen during his wedding as per Periyapuranam". Varooran (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:EUPHEMISM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)