Talk:Vamana

Untitled

I'm cleaning up this Article, many of the points are not universally accepted facts based on puranas.

ksaravanakumar - 30th Aug 2006

Move to Vamana (deity)

Vamana the deity is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC [1]. There is no need of moving. Please do not move without prior discussion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Water vessel as symbol of Vamana

A fact probably worth adding to the article is that a common symbol of Vamana is a water vessel, which apparently was part of the ritual to seal Bali's promise. I found this source informative. I don't have time to add this myself right now but I can at least mention it here for reference. 121.45.43.126 (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vamana. 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/20070311215547/http://blogs.epicindia.com/bhagavatam/2005/08/great-story-of-bali.html to http://blogs.epicindia.com/bhagavatam/2005/08/great-story-of-bali.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310192724/http://srimadbhagavatam.com/8/18/en1 to http://srimadbhagavatam.com/8/18/en1

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) 21:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Vamana Dwadashi

The details about Vamana Dwadashi are missing in the article. Here's a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:2E97:45E0:AC52:8F05:E7CB:D847 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Gender

Is it male or female ? 2405:201:5003:C19F:F93D:1F24:29E:C068 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

He is male. Hemmingweigh (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarized Sentence

"Though the episode of King Bali, associated with [the] Vamana incarnation, makes him appear anthropomorphic; the allegorical character of his three steps is hardly concealed."

Hi Chronikhiles ^(talk), I am posting this here per your suggestion. I take your input seriously, and would welcome a full explanation of why the above sentence should not have been deleted if you could please provide it. I was saying I didn't understand and the general reader wouldn't either as a manner of speaking, to humble myself while taking the bold step of deleting something. I was not conveying that my ignorance is cause for deletion. Below are a few of the reasons I have deleted this sentence, if you could touch on these points in your explanation. 1.) This sentence was a direct copy and past from page 24 of the source cited, which is plagiarism. 2.) The source cited was describing the avatars of Vishnu in terms of anthropomorphism versus zoomorphism, and saying that an avatar is anthropomorphic without this context changes the meaning. 3.) Page 78 of the cited source conveys a seemingly opposite meaning than the sentence that was plagiarized (that Vamana is anthropomorphic not allegory): "The first four zoomorphic Avatars betray distinct marks of allegory, while Anthropomorphic Vamana, the fifth incarnation of this list, is an enlargement of the idea of Vishnu's three strides, alluded to in the Rigveda."

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemmingweigh (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh Thank you for opening a section on this. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, so could you tell me how it is plagiarism under Wikipedia:Plagiarism? I believe there is in-text attribution, quotation marks, most of the text is properly paraphrased, and there is proper citation for the author's original work as well. Are you saying it breaks copyright policy? I think copy pasting content liberally as long as proper attribution and sources are given does not qualify as plagiarism. Again, I'm not an expert, so maybe a more knowledgeable editor can offer their thoughts on this as well.

If you would like to add context from the same author and the same source to the paragraph, I think that's alright, as long as it's concise and relevant. I personally find the phrasing here kind of confusing as well without context. As for page 78, the content you state here is absent from the article, so I don't think it calls for modification to the article itself. If you're citing this as a reason that it should be removed, I think gaining consensus from other editors is the way to go. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 12:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chronikiles, you are absolutely right. Apologies for the glaring oversight on my part. I do still feel that removing the sentence improved the paragraph's coherence overall, and since you find it confusing as well, I will leave it as is. I only mentioned page 78 to illustrate the larger arch of the scholar's argument and point out that without context, the quote in question actually does not convey that author's true meaning. There are more extensive quotes in this article overall which I will work on translating into paraphrased information. Best, Hemmingweigh (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chronikiles, I went to go correct any mistake I may have made in attribution when deleting those sentences and saw that you added the deleted content back in. If it is confusing without context, is there a reason it should remain in the article? Since that quote is not a summary of the author-- let alone a summary of the scholarship on Vamana-- why should it be included in this encyclopedia article? I will go ahead and propose in a new section here that this paragraph be deleted. Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Symbolism Section

Hello all, the first paragraph of the symbolism section has a lengthy quote from J. Roy which is not a summary of the author-- let alone a summary of the scholarship on Vamana. Does anyone disagree with deleting that paragraph because of its incoherence? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Rasnaboy

@Redtigerxyz

@Eucalyptusmint for your inputs. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh can you explain what you mean by 'is not a summary of the author'? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Eucalyptusmint, certainly. I mean that the quote is not representative of the author's overall argument and the author says things later that contradict this quote. Additionally, the quote without its context is not clear. Hemmingweigh (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have full access to the source so am unable to see their overall argument and is this a viewpoint of a scholarly author? I tried to search but am not finding much. Also, based on what I can see on page 24 of the book, there appear to be a few issues. First, the quoted information doesn't exactly match what's written in the book and the last sentence is saying something completely different than what's written in the article. For example:

• What's cited in the article: "Dwarf or Vamana incarnation of Vishnu is purely an allegory and seems to be a development of the idea of Vishnu's three strides, alluded to repeatedly in the Rigveda. The legend is also found in a more elaborated form in the Shatapatha Brahmana, which refers to the story of Vishnu, the Dwarf growing so large to cover the whole earth for the devas. [In the epics and Puranas] Though the episode of King Bali, associated with [the] Vamana incarnation, makes him appear anthropomorphic; the allegorical character of his three steps is hardly concealed. His actions maintain the usual functions of an incarnation, which are protection of the righteous, destruction of the wicked, and establishment of dharma."
• What's in the source: "The Dwarf or Vamana incarnation of Vishnu is purely an allegory and seems to be a development of the idea of Visnu's three strides, alluded to repeatedly in the Rigveda. The legend is also found in an enlarged form in the Satapatha Brahmana, which refers to the story of Visnu, the Dwarf growing so large as to encompass the whole earth for the gods. Though the episode of King Bali, associated with the Vamana incarnation, makes him appear anthropomorphic; the allegorical character of his three steps is hardly concealed. His exploits do not uphold the idea of the key functions of an incarnation, which are protection of the righteous, destruction of the wicked and establishment of dharma".

So based on this quote, the source/author is stating that Vamana is not an incarnation and therefore I don't think this quote should be included in the symbolism section, at least. And as Hemmingweigh mentioned, if the author is stating things later that contradicts this quote then maybe it's best not to include it at all or find a better source. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eucalyptusmint and @Chronikiles are you both then fine with deleting the specified sentences? Thanks, Hemmingweigh (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, per my reasoning mentioned above. Do you have any further thoughts Chronikhiles? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the specified sentences by this author could be deleted. The details of this origin legend can be later restored with a more coherent source. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 03:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Great. I'll go ahead and delete it. The source itself is definitely coherent, but the quote does not summarize what the author is saying. But certainly information that accurately summarizes the scholarship on the subject should continue to be added to the article. Best, Hemmingweigh (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)