Talk:Mahabali

Lack of Information
This entry has been totally butchered and includes almost nothing of scholarly, spiritual or other information. Let's get it together, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:2:7940:5815:BF31:FBCB:48C5 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC) This portion is misleading. There were many Bali's in Indian history. This Bali is not of Bali in 500 or 700 or 800 AD. Deepavali was celebrated during Pandavas period and during Ramayan also. So, this was in thousands of BC. Also it is not mythological but actual history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianhistorian123 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Name of the article?
Should this article really be called 'Bali Raj' when no-one in the area where he is most popular calls him that? Mahabali would make more sense. --Grammatical error 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree Karthik.raman 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some reference to make it authenticate. Now except one point all are just legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.35.31 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2006

Mahabalipuram
Isn't it note worthy to indicate the similarities of "Mahabalipuram" to Mahabali"? --Pinecar 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

'Asuras versus Devas' section is seriously offensive
Why publish the racist hypotheses of some scholar? This section needs to be re-worded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zondrah89 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC) It is not racist hypothesis. Please don't look everything from sickular view.

Gemology
I edited this section to remove the claim that gemologists believe that various gems came out of Bali's body. This is a religious belief, whereas the wikipedia article on gemology says it is a science and the reference provided is to an astrology site. I also removed a picture of several gems as they were not for the most part the ones in the list just a picture of gems.Kurtdriver (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)