Talk:Shambuka

Caste system vs. jati
I removed reference to "Hindu caste system" because during the time of Shri Rama, there was no such thing as Hinduism or what is today understood as the "caste system" and replaced it with the more appropriate term "jati."

I also removed external links to the main pages of Dalit websites as they had nothing to say about Shambuka and the Ramayana. There are more appropriate areas of WP for exhibiting the Dalit cause.

I also added a bunch of tags indicating references were needed, and added the overall NPOV banner at the top because the article still seems lopsided.

Comments/edits welcome

Rubber soul

First Sentence Compromise
I've reverted the first sentence to the language suggested by the closing editor, as the language currently in place was rejected by the RfC. A DRN filing was closed as intractable, so the only path forward seems to be to continue working toward consensus here. I've added a Template:Disputed_inline tag to the first sentence, which I've redirected here so that concerned editors can continue to discuss. I'd ask other editors to stop reverting the sentence, the language is disputed and the closing editor's suggestion is the closest we have to a neutral option pending this discussion. Toward the end of the RfC, an attempt was made to draft compromise language. The most resent proposed compromise was Shambuka is a character in some versions of the Hindu epic Ramayana, including the Uttara Kanda Book of the Ramayana. According to these versions, Shambuka, a shudra ascetic, was killed by Rama for attempting to perform tapas in violation of dharma, resulting in the bad karma which caused the death of a Brahmin's son. This language better captures the concerns of those who supported Option 1 in the RfC than the language offered by the closing editor, but no supporter of Option 1 commented on it, so we're on firmer ground to follow the suggestion of the closing editor pending discussion of the proposed compromise language. Later today I'll collate and summarize the arguments made for each proposal in the RfC, to have them handy to help with this task. Carleas (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is my too-brief summary of the state of discussion, derived from collating all the arguments and trying to distill common themes. I did my best to give a fair accounting, but I would appreciate input from those who supported option 1 to ensure that I have accurately captured their points.
 * Looking through the discussion for the RfC, I see three general points of disagreement:
 * Whether the Uttara Kanda is a part of the Ramayana
 * Supporters of option 1 argued that there is a scholarly consensus that the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation, and that suggestions otherwise are fringe or only made in passing and not forceful enough to overcome the consensus.
 * Supporters of option 2 argued that there is no scholarly consensus, or that scholars acknowledging its later authorship nonetheless consider it part of the Ramayana.
 * How important it is to the character of Shambuka if the Uttara Kanda is a later addition
 * Supporters of option 1 argued that the Uttara Kanda's later authorship is a central aspect of this character, and that not stating up front that he appears in a later addition is misleading.
 * Supporters of option 2 argued that the character is not described first and foremost as a later addition in cited sources, and that the character appears in works other than the Uttara Kanda.
 * How best to include disputes about the Uttara Kanda in the article about Shambuka.
 * Supporters of option 1 argued that because Uttara Kanda's later authorship is central to the character, it must be stated in the first sentence..
 * Supporters of option 2 argued that the dispute should be included in the article, but that it is unusual to include it in the first sentence.
 * I'd like to use this numbering throughout to help keep the discussion on track, so please do let me know if we need to modify this list.
 * Otherwise, it seems like consensus on 1 and 2 should be achievable by a review of the sources, while 3 will require references to the manual of style and/or canvasing similar articles. It may therefore be best to start with 1 and 2 and see if we can avoid debating style.  I can participate in that tomorrow.
 * Carleas (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The subject is controversial for being an interpolated character. That is precisely the biggest factor involved in this subject. You should avoid finding ways to get rid of that description. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please assume WP:GOODFAITH. My goal here is not to find ways to get rid of a description, it's to find a compromise between two strongly held positions on how this topic should be described.  I would appreciate your assistance in that. Carleas (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We have been through whole RfC over that and I am barely finding anything impressive from this discussion. You can try later. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you define what is an 'interpolated character' in standard English—the only version which you prefer to have for the lead sentence? Thanks. Phule lulu (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, the RfC failed to reach consensus. You and @Ratnahastin are acting like that failure supports the status quo, but the language being restored was one of the options in the RfC, and the RfC showed that it is not the consensus.  So we have to continue to discuss it instead of  WP:STONEWALLING ("opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion.") Carleas (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the compromise as it currently exists, then made additional changes in a separate edit. It now reads:
 * "Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a character in the Uttara Kanda, the last book in some tellings of the Indian epic Ramayana."
 * My rationale is as follows:
 * As mentioned below, the scholarly preference appears to be "tellings" rather than "versions".
 * Because the character does not appear in all tellings of the Ramayana, the Uttara Kanda should be mentioned first. This should also be less controversial, because there is no claim that Shambuka is a later addition to the Uttara Kanda, only that the Uttara Kanda is a later addition to the Ramayana.
 * Because the Ramayana is a sacred text in multiple religions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, likely many more), it's better to describe it as an Indian epic, rather than a specifically Hindu epic.
 * Carleas (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is ironic that you are talking about stonewalling when the time is to move on.
 * Why do you believe edit warring can be the solution when we have already went through RfC?
 * Your edits are doing nothing much other than suppressing the fact about the character being an intepolation. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete large portions of the page even the content other than the lead sentence? Can you please explain how is it not vandalism of page?
 * When you say 'time is to move on' without explaining yourself why the 'interpolated character' version should stay, and not participating further in RfC, is it not 'stonewalling' ?
 * The author had included the part which does acknowledge that the character is found in the chapter considered as later addition by some. How is it suppressing the fact? Phule lulu (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Arvind, you cannot provide a single source that describes Shambuka as an "interpolated character".
 * Carleas (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another alternative:
 * "Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a character in the Uttara Kanda."
 * Rationale: doesn't mention Ramayana, since the dispute is not about whether he was originally in the Uttara Kanda, but whether the Uttara Kanda is in the Ramayana. Says as little as possible while still being true and informative. Carleas (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @ArvindPalaskar "then wait until there is actually any consensus"
 * There will never be consensus if you do not engage in discussion. You are WP:STONEWALLING
 * The text you keep restoring is not consensus.
 * Carleas (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes we had whole RfC with regards to this very same question and you are still looking for highly predictable answers. You can see WP:STICK. Ratnahastin  (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The horse isn't dead; the debate has not "come to a natural end". The RfC failed to reach consensus, it did not establish consensus for your favored version.
 * Stonewalling does not establish consensus. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue", and you have provided no arguments.
 * Carleas (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet another attempt at a compromise:
 * "Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is a character found in the Uttara Kanda, an interpolated book included in some tellings of the Ramayana."
 * Explanation:
 * Leaves 'interpolation' in the first sentence because that's clearly important to some editors (though they refuse to explain why), and appears supported by most scholarship.
 * Removes the description of "interpolated character", which is not supported.
 * Does not begin by describing where the character does not appear, which is confusing and absurd.
 * Carleas (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your proposed edits are certainly omitting any facts about the legitimacy of not only the character but also the book itself. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of facts: please provide a single WP:RS that refers to Shambuka as "an interpolated character". As of now, the claim is unsourced. Carleas (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should take this to 'Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee' to address the repeat vandalism of lead sentence without providing any supporting evidence for the unheard-of phrase 'interpolated character'? Phule lulu (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so, though coming from me it looks like WP:SOURGRAPES. But from the time I first got involved with this article, it was pretty clearly a case of WP:GAMING, specifically WP:STONEWALLING, WP:FILIBUSTER, and WP:TAGTEAM.  The RfC failed with few substantive comments in support of the status quo, that option failed to achieve consensus but every alternative has been reverted with some version of "get consensus first", but the editors don't substantively engage in discussion toward consensus.  Other edits are now being reverted for not getting permission first.  The inline dispute tag has been removed repeatedly removed, along with numerous edits throughout the page unrelated to the first sentence/RfC, not subject to dispute, and without justification (often including reverts of maintenance edits like correcting typo in a named reference).  This behavior didn't start with the RfC, it's the reason the RfC was created.
 * It's been going on for two and a half years, the RfC has failed, the DRN request was denied, partial protection did not reduce the temperature, multiple editors have been blocked or warned, and the edit warring continues.  I don't think this will be resolved without administrative intervention.  The DRN denial recommended escalation to WP:ANI if WP:TENDENTIOUS editing continued.
 * Carleas (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Admins can do nothing to resolve your content dispute. Your concern is better addressed on WP:STICK which clearly states: "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a long, drawn-out draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." Ratnahastin  (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Break

 * Wrt to the sources discussed in the RFC, I have not any sources that "define" Shambuka as "interpolated character". We do not define Maya Sita, Lakshmana rekha as interpolations. Also refer to Purusha Sukta, where the definition says it is a hymn (earlier "interpolated hymn" was pushed). Second sentence mentions the controversy. We state that they are found in some versions of the Ramayana or the Bala Kanda or the Uttara Kanda. "Uttara Kanda is an interpolation" is not a fact, it is a majority opinion. There are still traditional proponents that believe Uttara Kanda is written by Valmiki (a good summary of opinions). Suggest we just state the facts in the lead as per MOS:FIRST: "Shambuka is a character in some versions of the Hindu epic Ramayana, including the Uttara Kanda Book of the Ramayana." It is undisputed that he is a character in Uttara Kanda. "some versions" provides POV balancing. "Uttara Kanda, an interpolated book included in some tellings of the Ramayana" is POV in my opinion and false as an opinion is stated as a fact. Requesting other editors to provide sources that define him as a "interpolated characters". -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Interpolated character" is pretty clearly wrong, no source claims that this character specifically was inserted into the work, and as far as I can tell this is the only article on all of Wikipedia that describes someone as an interpolated character (all but one use of the phrase are about this page/RfC; the only exception is talking about typeface ).
 * Calling the Uttara Kanda an interpolation is better supported; I agree that it's not unanimous, but it's stronger than an opinion, and is approaching scholarly consensus (from what I've seen, the disagreement is whether it was written later by Valmiki or someone else). But the scholarly consensus is that the book appears in "Valmiki's Ramayana": that term refers to a specific manuscript and does not assert a claim of sole authorship by the poet.
 * Including interpolation issues around the Uttara Kanda in the first sentence strikes me as MOS:LEADCLUTTER, but as a compromise it's at least arguably true, where Option 1 in RfC is just incorrect.
 * The only change I'd suggest to the language you inserted is to change "Hindu epic" to "Indian epic" or "ancient Indian epic", which follows Goldman (2016) (and other works by Goldman in that series, all of which have "An Epic of Ancient India" in the subtitle), and acknowledges that non-Hindu traditions also treat the Ramayana as a sacred text. Carleas (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You had used this argument before and during the RfC but it hasn't been conclusive. Can you stop making same arguments again? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you are finding problems with any other articles then you must fix them.

Some sources:



Since this character is highly controversial and undoubtedly faulty, you cannot whitewash the first paragraph. Everyone find the character and book both to be an interpolation. There is no disagreement. Just because you find something to be "POV in my opinion" then still the fact cannot be suppressed. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Dr. M.V. Nadkarni (Mangesh Venkatesh Nadkarni), born on February 23, 1939, an economist by training and profession, has deep interest in other social sciences as well, as also in religion and philosophy." Nadkarni is an established economist and peer-reviewed. I could not find any references being considered an expert in religion. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Questioning the neutrality and encyclopedic value of this work with terms like "Shri Ram", "Sita ji", "Sanatan Dharm", "Devi Sita", "Lord Krishna"; also the tone of the work with rhetorical questions. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The play Shanbhuk Vadh (1964) is based on the myth of Sambuk’s murder. It is a story that is found in the Uttara Kanda; according to this story, Rama, the king of Ayodhya, killed a shudra ascetic named Shambuka for performing tapas (austerities), which was against the rules of dharma (duty) for his caste. This act of Rama was supposed to restore the balance of the cosmic order and revive a Brahmin son who had died due to Shambuka’s transgression. However, this story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination." Again Shambuka is initially defined as part of Uttara Kanda again. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If one reads this further, "Shambuka in the Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana is an episode that reveals a major faultine or contradiction in the text... Various explanations of the contradiction are possible, but they do not fully explain it away. ... By killing him, Rama fulfills his wish, ... This remains an unresolved contradiction within the Ramayana." Ruth does not per se call him an interpolation, while defining him part of the Uttara Kanda, which is a fact. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not able to read online. The book is not peer-reviewed; printed by a charitable Trust. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The book is a translation of a Hindi book. The author is a BJP political leader, former minister of Uttar Pradesh (not a scholar). Again questionable neutrality and encyclopedic value - "Shri Ram" -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "King Sri Rama", "Great Sage Valmiki", "Sri Ramayana". Not a reliable source.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Georgethedragonslayer, kindly provide reliable sources where Shambuka is "defined" as an interpolation. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is totally ironic of you to engage in nitpicking given what horrible quality of sources you have used for claiming "Shambuka is alluded in Mahabharat", with one of your unreliable source not even mentioning "Shambuka". Wareon (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Shambuka is spelled as "Samvuka" in the source; also see note 338:1. The so-called "unreliable" is the translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguli; Quoting Mahabharata article: "Most critics consider the translation by Ganguli to be faithful to the original text. The complete text of Ganguli's translation is in the public domain and is available online" (which is linked). It is also ironic that other 4 references are ignored Redtigerxyz  Talk 07:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Arguments made in the RfC are worth revisiting, because the RfC failed to reach consensus. We need to continue to discuss the disagreements that lead to that failure.
 * I don't see how anything I said is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My point is that no source refers to Shambuka as an "interpolated character", and as far as I can tell that term was invented for this page alone.
 * The sources you've offered support the claim that the Uttara Kanda is an interplated book, a claim I had my most recent edit of the first sentence, and which you reverted without explanation.
 * Carleas (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However, your edit was not just concerned with the word "interpolated" but much more than that. Wareon (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see despite your best efforts, there is a focused obfuscation in order to dehumanise the character Shambuka under the pretext that 'Uttara Kanda' is later addition, which ironically you did cite in your edit.
 * May I request you to look at comments left by ToBeFree on the Talk page of ArvindPalaskar on some guidelines around this. Phule lulu (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I had to fix the chopping off done by Redtigerxyz with regards to comment of Georgethedragonslayer. Unless you can bring as many scholarly sources which say that Uttara Kanda or this character is not an interpolation, then you stand no chance to change the lead. Also, don't add the frivolous "disputed" tag to the lead. The information has been confirmed by many scholarly sources and the RfC also ended up with "no consensus". That tag is not supposed to be used only because you failed to get your version. It is clearly disruptive to misuse this tag only to somehow pave a way for your preferred version. Wareon (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Recent edits by Carleas did not claim that Uttara Kanda was always the part of Valmiki Ramayana. Your attempt to use such a false claim in order to not answer the question, 'What is the scholarly source which says Shambuka is an interpolated character' is disingenuous.
 * Uttara Kanda can be considered a later addition as per some sources (that too added to upheld brahminical superiority), but Shambuka, a character in Uttara Kanda is just that, 'a character'. Usage of some random English phrase 'interpolated character' just taints the character with no evidence to support. Phule lulu (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Your claim that "Uttara Kanda can be considered a later addition as per some sources" is false because it is an entirely later addition. Shambuka's own story is not consistent with Jain version where he was not killed. If you want to allege people of caste bias then you are at a wrong place. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can not use one version of Ramayana (Jain) and with it reject all other versions mentioning Shambuka episode. Do you see Lava and Kusha, sons of Ram, being mentioned as interpolated characters elsewhere in Wikipedia?
 * Do you have even a single source which uses the term 'interpolated character' for Shambuka, and is it even a standard phrase in English? Phule lulu (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't you see The Wire source (cited above) saying that Shambuka "story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination."? How else will you describe it as if not "interpolated character"?
 * Do you have any other suggestion aside from "interpolated character" to define Shambuka which can reflect it's highly inconsistent and contradictory description across Jain and Hindu scriptures? If you don't have then at least don't whitewash the subject by making edits like this. Ratnahastin  (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that a version of the Uttara Kanda without Shambuka's story was part of the Valmiki Ramayana, and Shambuka's story was added to that book later?
 * Carleas (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No he did not say that. It is not certain when Shambuka story came to Uttara Kanda either and it is very brief. Yes it contradicts with other versions from around the same time.  ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there versions of the Uttara Kanda that do not include the Shambuka story?
 * Carleas (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @ArvindPalaskar Please reply. I'm trying to understand why "interpolated character" vs. "interpolated book".  The latter seems better supported and more accurate, but you seem to be saying the story was inserted in the Uttara Kanda separately.  I have not seen that claim made elsewhere, so I want to be sure I'm understanding you. Carleas (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the article in the The Wire, the paragraph before your quote is where Shambuka is first mentioned:
 * "'The play Shanbhuk Vadh (1964) is based on the myth of Sambuk’s murder. It is a story that is found in the Uttara Kanda; according to this story, Rama, the king of Ayodhya, killed a shudra ascetic named Shambuka for performing tapas (austerities), which was against the rules of dharma (duty) for his caste. This act of Rama was supposed to restore the balance of the cosmic order and revive a Brahmin son who had died due to Shambuka’s transgression.'"
 * I'm not sure that a news and opinion website is a WP:reliable source for this (there are better sources supporting the claim that the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation, e.g. Goldman2016 and Goldman2020), but even that source does not mention interpolation first, it describes Shambuka as "a shudra ascetic", and says his story is found in the Uttara Kanda, and only mentions interpolation in the second paragraph discussing his story.
 * Carleas (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is clear there is a concerted attempt to dehumanise the character using this misleading phrase 'interpolated character' rather than calling the book 'Uttara Kanda' as interpolation. That too while conveniently glossing over this reasoning from the same source 'However, this story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination'. Intellectual honesty will mean same meaningless phrase being forced on characters like Lava, Kusha (sons of Rama) from Uttara Kanda, in their Wikipedia pages, yet here we are.
 * Any way, if you can take the lead on bringing it to Arbitration committee or whatever be the appropriate step to get this article past this concerted stonewalling, I'll work on gathering required scholarly references to support. Thank you for bringing it this far. Phule lulu (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wire is a reliable source thus it is useless to question the source in this discussion. Goldman has cited Asim Kumar Chatterjee in his chapter and mentioned that he treates Shambuka as "an invention of some bigoted Brahamana poet".
 * For Arbitration committee, first read this page, it clearly says, "The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content disputes, which are resolved by alternative methods."
 * You already know the criticism that exists about Shambukha and why "interpolated character" is mentioned. If you can find similar criticism for the stories of Lava and Kusha then let me know. Ratnahastin  (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I see that The Wire was determined to be "generally reliable for factual reporting," i.e. news reporting. But that's not what the source is being used for here.  The WP:RS page clarifies that "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."  While the Wire is generally reliable for factual reporting, that does not make it reliable for this purpose.
 * You also did not address the point that The Wire does not describe Shambuka as an "interpolated character" when it first mentions him (and never uses that phrase), which is a problem since it's being used to support referring to him that way in the first sentence of this article. The Wire article, RS or not, does not support calling him an interpolated character in the first sentence.
 * Carleas (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many of these should be cited in the article, because they discuss an important aspect of the character (that I added a large section of the article to address, and your help expanding it would improve this article).
 * But none of these sources use "interpolated character", and they don't support the current version of the first sentence. At most they describe the Uttara Kanda as an interpolation.  When they describe Shambuka at all, they introduce him as a "shudr" or "ascetic" before mentioning interpolation (Nadkarni, Yadav, Shukl).  Others explicitly support that his story is part of the Valmiki Ramayana, even if it is an interpolated book in that manuscript (e.g. Vanita, "Shambuka in the Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana" (emphasis added).
 * Please WP:AGF, I'm not denying that the character is controversial nor that the Uttara Kanda is a likely interpolation. What I'm saying is that the first sentence as written ('Option 1' in the RfC) is a bad way to begin the article, it's confusing, it's poorly supported, it's not a good introductory sentence.  The article should include substantial discussion of what makes this character controversial and how his story is used in discussions around interpolation in the Ramayana.  The first paragraph should absolutely briefly introduce that controversy.  But the first sentence should not begin by describing the topic of the page in a way no scholar does, in terms that no scholar uses, making claims unsupported by scholarship, and stating where the character is not found. Carleas (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear all, this has reported at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Have proposed to revert lead sentence to RFC closer's non-binding suggestion and fully protect the article. Redtigerxyz  Talk 09:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes you have problem with "interpolated character" but like others have already asked, I will also ask. Do you have any other suggestion for wording which is at least as strong as the current wording? Wareon (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Defining Shambuka as "interpolated character" is a POV. The following is neutral and factual. The word "some" by suggests that he is not included in all versions of the epic. Also in line with definitions of the character in academic sources as detailed in below part.
 * "a character in some versions of the Hindu epic Ramayana, including the Uttara Kanda Book of the Ramayana".
 * Maybe I missed it, however no RS sources are presented clearly defining Shambuka as "interpolated character". Shambuka should be defined as what "he is" (character in Uttara Kanda), rather than what he is not ("which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana")
 * Redtigerxyz Talk 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting completely whitewashes the subject and ignores all the criticism. The Wire source (cited above) saying that Shambuka "story has been criticised and rejected by many scholars and thinkers as an interpolation and a fabrication that was created to justify the caste system and Brahminical domination." So how else will you describe it as if not "interpolated character"? Surely we cannot ignore the criticism that has surrounded the subject so far.
 * "which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana" is 100% correct. Read this:"interpolation took place in the Rāmāyaṇa story the Uttarakāṇḍa was not the part of the original Vālmīki -Rāmāyaṇa and it seems to be an interpolation of the later Vedic times ( 3rd century to 2nd ), the Sambūka episode is a later addition since it finds place in Uttarakāṇḍa. Therefore, such an interpolation and question based on interpolation seems to be out of context. If Rāma was the king of the post - Vedic times, the Sambūka incident might have been authentic and somewhat real, but since the history of Rāma is not very clear, we cannot associate him with the caste ridden society." Ratnahastin  (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that the correct link? The linked source appears to be in Italian.
 * As I pointed out elsewhere, the Wire article is not a reliable source for scholarly research, and in any case it does not describe Shambuka as an "interpolated character". The preceding paragraph from that article describes Shambuka this way:
 * "The play Shanbhuk Vadh (1964) is based on the myth of Sambuk’s murder. It is a story that is found in the Uttara Kanda; according to this story, Rama, the king of Ayodhya, killed a shudra ascetic named Shambuka for performing tapas (austerities), which was against the rules of dharma (duty) for his caste. This act of Rama was supposed to restore the balance of the cosmic order and revive a Brahmin son who had died due to Shambuka’s transgression."
 * So if you really wanted to follow this source, the first sentence should be something like
 * "Shambuka is a shudra ascetic in the Uttara Kanda who was killed by Rama for performing tapas."
 * That's the information about Shambuka that the wire article puts up front; it discusses interpolation in the following paragraph.
 * Carleas (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wire is fine for this information specially when it is not alone with alone the dispute.
 * With that your proposed wording, you are not highlighting any dispute despite this whole subject is fraught with that. Instead your wording appears to be making the whole thing appear as if there is no dispute. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that issues of interpolation should be discussed somewhere in the lead, they are an important part of Shambuka's continued importance. But the first sentence is not the right place for them, it's a confusing way to start describing the topic.
 * My point is that the source you're citing doesn't highlight the dispute when it first describes Shamuka either: it first describes his character in the context of the Uttara Kanda, and in the next paragraph describes issues around interpolation. The same would be reasonable for this article: describe his character in the Uttara Kanda, and then discuss issues with that work and how they relate to this character.
 * Separately, the phrase "interpolated character" is misleading, it doesn't accurately describe the dispute. No RS uses it, and scholarly consensus is that the whole of the Uttara Kanda is an interpolation.  "Interpolated character" makes it seem like the character was inserted into the Uttara Kanda, when in fact Shambuka being part of the Uttara Kanda is used as evidence that the Uttara Kanda as a whole is interpolated.  It's more accurate and better supported by scholarship to say that he's a character in a book in the Ramayana now regarded as an interpolation.
 * Whether or not The Wire is RS for this purpose, it supports these points. Carleas (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sure I will be only repeating myself if I responded to your message. Now TrulyShruti has made a unilateral modification to the lead but I won't revert it right away. I will think of something more accurate and come back soon. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "interpolation" was mentioned twice in the lead. Moved the interpolation para to the first para in the lead. The whole of Uttara Kanda is treated as interpolation, including Shambuka, Sita's exile etc. Most references (including dictionaries) define him as a character in Ramayana/ Uttara Kanda (earliest reference)/ Sudra etc. I have moved the interpolation to the original epic para to first para to address "criticism". Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edits to the lead are simply imposing your own earlier preferred version for the reasons I have already stated above. I have restored the last stable version even though I disagree with it. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources for 1 and 2
Sources are roughly ordered to address points 1 first and 2 second, but many arguably go to both points so I did not label them as addressing one or the other. Please add any that I have missed.
 * N.L. Gupta (2003), An Introduction to Eastern Ways of Thinking, p. 158: "By now, it can be confirmly said the 'Uttarkand' of Ramayana is an interpolation of quite later period (IV or V century A.D.) which was made an instrument, among other things, to highlight the supremacy of the privileged class, i.e. Brahmins. This phenomena has been reflected in writings by many noted scholars Eastern as well Western." Source
 * Paula Richman (2008). Ramayana Stories in Modern South India: An Anthology, p. 111: "...Valmiki's Ramayana depicts Rama slaying Shambuka, a Shudra tapasvi (ascetic)... The earliest and most prestigious account of Shambuka's story appears in the last book (uttara-kanda) of the Ramayana attributed to Valmiki. Most scholars view this book as a later interpolation, but whether it dates from Valmiki's time or somewhat later, it soon became part of the ongiong Ramayana tradition." Source
 * id., p. 232: "Shambuka: a Shudra who practiced rigorous tapas."Source
 * id., p. 8: "Truly, Ramayana is not a story but a tradition of storytelling, within whose capacious limits many different stories are contained...When referring to a particular recounting of Ramkatha, the term "variant" is avoided because its usage implies that only a single correct version exists, from which every other telling varies. Instead, following the usage of A.K. Ramanujan, in this volume we use the term "telling" to refer to individual renditions. We do so because each selection is a valid telling of Ramkatha, worthy of attention in its own right.Source
 * Julia Leslie, Authority and Meaning in Indian Religions, p. 194: "In a minor incident in the Valmiki Ramayana, the sudra Sambuka ..." Source
 * M. V. Nadkarni (2003). "Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism? Demolishing a Myth", p. 4787: "The story of Shambuka in Ramayana is also cited as supporting caste system to an extreme extent. It is the story of a shudra who was killed on the advice of ministers by Rama as a punishment for doing penance and neglecting his caste duties. The story appears in Uttara Kanda, which is not a part ofValmiki's Ramayana which ends with Rama's return to Ayodhya in Yuddhakanda. P V Kane, an eminent Sanskrit scholar, is of the view that Uttara Kanda was clearly a 'work of later interpolators' [ibid: Vol 1, Part 1, p 389]."Source
 * James Lochtefeld, Encylcopedia of Hinduism, p. 622: "Shudra ascetic who appears both in the Ramayana, the earlier of the two great Indian epics, and in the poet Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsha, whose story line is based on the Ramayana." (quoted by Chilicave )
 * Vettam Mani, Puranic encyclopedia p. 677: "A Śūdra muni." (quoted by Redtigerxyz )
 * Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary: "a Śūdra (who had become a devotee and was slain by Rāma-candra), R. ; Uttarar. (cf. śambuka)" (quoted by Redtigerxyz )
 * Hari Prasad Shastri (1957). The Ramayana of Valmiki. Vol. III - Yuddha Kanda and Uttara Kanda, page 673}}"Shambuka: A Shudra who sought to become a brahmin and was slain by Rama." Source
 * Rinehart, Robin (2004). Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and Practice, p424}}"Shambuka (Sambika). Character in Ramayana; Shudra who performed austerities and was killed by Rama." Source
 * Carleas (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Talk 12:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Vidyut Aklujkar in Paula Richman (editor) Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian Tradition p95: "In V.R. [(Valmiki Ramayana)], where Sambuka myth originally occurs, Sambuka is a Shudra performing penance , and Rama has to kill him in order to avert the untimely death of a Brahmin boy in his kingdom."Source

Claim 1
Gupta, Richman, and Nadkarni all support the idea that the Uttara Kanda is a later addition to the Ramayana, though Richman is explicit in considering it nonetheless legitimate. Gupta does not offer citations for his claim, but Nadkarni and Richman do. However, Nadkarni's does not seem to say what he claims, though this may be an issue of a bad scan and/or an earlier version (I could only find the 1930 version and his cite is to the 1990 version, but Uttara Kanda does not appear in the index of the 19030 version of the same book) ) Richman cites to herself and Goldman, arguably the leading Ramayana scholar in the west, who has published a full translation of the Ramayana. In the introduction he discusses the issues with authorship, but says only that, "Scholars of the Ramayana have also noted that much of the text shows linguistic and rhetorical differences from the rest of the poem, especially books 2 through 6, while some have even argued that the entire book is a later addition to the work and that the 'original' poem ended with Yuddhakanda and the consecration of Rama. This is a complex issue, and we will not go into the details of the arguments here." (p. 19, emphasis added) I'll add Goldman to the sources list.  Goldman also clarifies that "Vamliki's Ramayana", referring to the earliest extant manuscript, did include the Uttara Kanda. Id., 3-8  In the work he cites for additional discussion (footnote 10, page 19), as far as I can tell he only specifies that it was included "at a very early date".  Contra Gupta, he notes that it was mentioned in another work dated "within the first two or three centuries AD" (id. page 68); Gupta suggests it at 4th or 5th century. In any case Richman still includes the Uttara Kanda in "Valmiki's Ramayana".  Only Nadkarni claims explicitly that the Uttara Kanda is not a part of Valmiki's Ramayana, but I can't confirm that his cited source supports that claim. From this it seems clear that at least we can say that there is no scholarly consensus, in large part because, as Goldman and Richman point out, there are many Ramayanas. It seems there's a consensus the Uttara Kanda appears in the oldest extant manuscript we have of the Vamliki Ramayana, but that scholars agree that the text is noteably different, and many believe it was added later. One takeaway from this is to note that both Goldman and Richman use the convention of calling them "tellings" rather than "versions"; compromise language using the same convention would better align with the scholarship.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2024
"In some traditions like those of Madhvacharya Sampradaya he is belived to be a form of Asura named Janga (as per Shrimad Mahabhaarata-Taatparya-Nirnaya Chapter 9 verse 21)"

Jonny2003 05 26 (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)