Talk:Meghanada

Comment
You need to cover all versions of the Ramayana. The nromal version is Lakshman kiled Indrajit after a fierce battle. Indrajit very much had his weapons and did fight. He was just disrupted from completing his Yajna which would have made him invincible

Reason for revert
@ please cite sources to keep the content. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  09:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Why cant you simply provide a tag and wait sometime for someone to provide the references ? You are simple axing a lot of data contributed by editors over the time ! At least have the decency to respect the contribution of other's dude !! If you go on this style i believe Wikipedia will be going back in time to its infancy !!. I am reverting your edits. Have patience and wait out for some time after putting the citation needed tag.Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indrajit. 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/20090831210000/http://www.dharmathai.com/ramakian/2008/08/intarachit.html to http://www.dharmathai.com/ramakian/2008/08/intarachit.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism
This article is constantly vandalised by a user named Aahwan sing. This guy is simply deleting data, a ton in fact and keep on doing it. Somebody please do something. Prasanthkumar17 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Indrajit → Indrajita – Indrajita is the actual original name and the current spelling is a derivative from specific languages & not referring to the historical character as portrayed in the Ramayana in the Sanskritham language. Though there may be more search results for the name due to focus of english speaking newspapers towards regions where this derivative is used,that does not reflect the accurate naming convention for this character. Sanskritham does not have schwa deletion & therefore does not drop the ending vowel. 174.44.177.134 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia does not use direct romanizations of the "original" word; we have Germany not Deutschland.  Google Books has 519 hits for "Indrajita ramayana" and a "Did you mean: Indrajit ramayana", and 8870 hits for "Indrajit ramayana".  SnowFire (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Germany, which may be the accepted English word for Duestchland, Indrajita is the actual word/name and character from an ancient epic which has not undergone any change in the ~2,000 years that it has been around nor has some pan accepted modernization. Indrajit is a language & region specific variation of the original word, Indrajita,which has nothing to do with the original name of the character. Google Books may have such a result, but again, you're talking about a name which is DERIVED from the original character which HAS NOT changed. Indrajita is a HISTORICAL character that has existed outside of his name's derivative. So Google Books result may be referring to modern day characters with the derived name or a region specific version of the name. if this discussion was about a modern day person/character named Indrajit, then yes, that would make sense, but this is specifically about the original character/name. By this logic, we should change every traditional/ancient name to align with modern derivation of that name. (e.g.Jesus to Joshua or whatever other derivation may exist.) Also keep in mind that english media is,unfortunately, dominated by region specific literature which may give their own derivations in place of the actual names. I would hope that wikipedia aims to spread the actual truth & not someone's version of it. 174.44.177.134 (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be "unfortunate", but Wikipedia is not a vehicle to right great wrongs. Also, it's trivial to show that basically all English sources call that Jesus "Jesus".  Meanwhile, the exact situation you describe happens all the time where a different language's version of some article is used.  See Kiev (that's the Russian name for the city, not the Ukrainian spelling) or Prasanthkumar17's examples below. SnowFire (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indrajit is the correct name in which majority of Indian languages spell the character. Indrajita is rarely used and it's only used in small regional areas in India. It's absolutely not advisable to change the character name. If we change this name to Indrajita then everyone will start to ask to change the names of mythological characters especially from Hindu epics to their regional variant for example Karna may be spelled as Karnan, Arjuna as Arjunan, Bhishma as Bhishmar, Bhima as Bhiman etc. I completely agree with the arguments of @SnowFire (talk) .Prasanthkumar17 (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanskritham names end w/ vowels, Rama, Krishna,Sita, Durga, Indra,Surya, etc. It is LITERALLY not correct when spelled in Devanagari script. in Hindi & other derived languages of Sanskritham, there is schwa deletion which drops the ending -a but that is the specific regional variation of that language. Indrajita is the ORIGINAL name as it is from the Sanskritham language. It is not about correcting an injustice, it is about representing the correct pronounciation and transliteration of the name. If this was a Hindi wiki, then you'd be right, but this is a wiki about an ancient hindu character. As such it should reflect his name as it is created & not the variation of specific regions that are descendents. That would be a misrepresentaiton of history. We don't say Chris instead of Christ, it would be wrong.
 * Indrajit is not correct, at least not in Sanskritham.

As for Kiev, there may have been an accepted historical precedence for it being spelled that way. and it really goes to the point i'm making: kiev was part of Kievan Rus which was under Russian empire. there was no distinction of Ukraninan vs. Russian.

Indrajita is the original historical name. what you're talking about is replacing & distorting the original name to represent a singular language regionalized version which doesn't represent the historical name in the context of this wiki page being not about the modern day version.

"from Hindu epics to their regional variant for example Karna may be spelled as Karnan, Arjuna as Arjunan, Bhishma as Bhishmar, Bhima as Bhiman etc."

Exactly!

As it stands now, this article's title is ALREADY a specific variation of the original name,i.e. the HINDI/Punjabi etc. variation. The ACTUAL original name is Indrajita. The Tamil variation would be Indrajitan, the Hindi variation Indrajit, the Telugu variation Indrajitudu.

To contineu with your line of thinking, we should also change the name of Seeta to Seet, Raama to Raam, Krishna to Krish and so on because approximately 40% of india speaks Hindi & this is their variation of these names. that's preposterous, we don't change history because people don't know it!

and i'm not even saying that Hindi language is not legitimate or hindi rules don't call for this.

What i am saying is that these are historical/mythological characters with a pronounced history of how they are represented/named. In that context, these names are specifically designated & should be represented.

Why the Hindi variation gets to be represented in an article regarding a pan Indian character with his own name in original Sanskritham is beyond me and reflects a bias.

Both of your arguments are reflecting bias and misrepresenting history & replacing it w/ your own regional preferences. Is wikipedia not meant to spread real information? not your personal opinion or mine? Prasanthkumar17 SnowFire

RfC about the title of the page
The name should be changed to Indrajita as this is referring a Sanskritham character from the Ramayana & not the Hindi/Punjabi/etc. name derived into those languages & does not have schwa deletion. Perhaps a separate page which identifies it as a derivative of the original name can be created, but it is erroneous to represent a historically established character w/ a completely modern name.174.44.177.134 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the template. There is no need to hold a WP:RFC, for two reasons: first, it is not a RFC matter but a WP:RM matter; second, there is already an ongoing RM immediately above - one which you started yourself, just six minutes earlier. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I was told to start an RFC by another moderator. 174.44.177.134 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have moderators. Who told you to start an RFC, and where? I see no mention of either RFC (or Requests for Comment) elsewhere on this page, except in the section about "External links modified", which isn't relevant. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User talk:Jim1138 this person told me to start this.

Sources required
All astras are mentioned but not even single source is mentioned that Indrajit possessed a particular astra. Sources must be mentioned please. Karna DV (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Indrajit didn't release Pashupatastra & Brahmandastra on Lashmana. He just used Vaishnavastra on Lakshmana which got nullified because Lashmana was Sesh Nag. On seeing Vaishnavastra, Indrajit didnt even use Pashupatastra. Moreover he didnt had Brahmandastra at that time, because he already had used- which killed 670 million vanaras Karna DV (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)