Talk:Vaikunda Avatharam

This doesn't just need copyediting or wikifying, it needs a major rewrite. I can't make heads or tails of what's going on here, otherwise I'd do the rewrite myself. Christiant 21:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree; unfortunately, this whole series of articles is mostly being added (with badly-formed titles, categories, etc.), and often written very obscurely) by one eitor whose first language isn't English. I'm trying to keep up, but he's producing a lot of stuff, and sometimes (as here) I'm like you &mdash; unable to do much because I can't make sense of it. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 06:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ayya Vaikundar
I just copy edited a page called Ayya Vaikundar that apparently is about the same character (no disrespect intended). The two articles need to be combined, but I am unaware of this history, so I do not feel comfortable doing it. Steven McCrary 15:04, 07/13/05 (UTC).
 * it looks like it's been done - Christiant


 * Oh, that was me &mdash; sorry. I did it before I noticed this comment. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Steven McCrary retrieved the following message from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevenwmccrary58", "Title Vaikunda Avatharam-I am here to suggest that though the two titles seems alike they were extremely different. While the topic Ayya Vaikundar tells the Incarnation of Vaikundar which follows the the life of Muthukutty, the title Vaikunda Avatharam narrates in a mythical way following the life of Sampooranathevan. According to Akilattirattu Sampooranathevan was one among the Devas, who takes birth in this world. Mind you Sampooranathevan was a mythical figure while Muthukutty was an ordinary man in the society who was also noted in the history. Also the name Muthukutty was not even mentioned once in Akilattirattu. So in brief the title Ayya Vaikundar views the incarnation in a historical point while the title Vaikunda Avatharam views it from a mythical point. So better the title not to redirect. If you still feels uncomfortable please send me messages . Iam the one who created that article and as Mel Etitis says in the discussion page Iam not a native to English and not so fluent with the language. So please understand my difficulties and try to do your best in helping me in writing articles. -Vaikunda Raja" 19:59 14 July 2005 (UTC) Steven McCrary 01:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that I must continue to advocate for the combination of the articles Vaikunda Avatharam, Ayya Vaikundar, Muthukutty, and Sampooranathevan, into one article. Although these characters (again no disrespect intended) are viewed as separate entities in the minds of the faithful, and indeed that may be true, nevertheless these individuals are represented by only one (and the same) human being on earth.  To me, separate articles on them is confusing.  Any other opinions?   Steven McCrary 01:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(from my Talk page:) You had redirected Vaikunda Avatharam to Ayya Vaikundar. I am here to suggest that though the two titles seems alike they were extremely different. While the topic Ayya Vaikundar tells the Incarnation of Vaikundar which follows the the life of Muthukutty, the title Vaikunda Avatharam narrates in a mythical way following the life of Sampooranathevan. According to Akilattirattu Sampooranathevan was one among the Devas, who takes birth in this world. Mind you Sampooranathevan was a mythical figure while Muthukutty was an ordinary man in the society who was also noted in the history. Also the name Muthukutty was not even mentioned once in Akilattirattu. So in brief the title Ayya Vaikundar views the incarnation in a historical point while the title Vaikunda Avatharam views it from a mythical point. So better the title not to redirect. If you still want to do please send me messages before and place the reason. - Vaikunda Raja

(my reply:) But your article on Vaikunda Avatharam starts by referring to him as Ayya Vaikundar &mdash; it's unclear why you think that two different articles are needed about one person. He may well have existed in reality as well as having mythical status, but that's something that can be brought out and discussed in the single article, surely? The same sort of thing has been discussed at Jesus; there was probably a real person to whom that name refers, but much of what's said about him by Christians is mythological in character. The suggestion that the article be split into Jesus and Jesus Christ (in what's known as a PoV fork) was rejected, and Jesus Christ merely redirects to Jesus. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering the precedent set with the Jesus article, I agree with you & Steven. Christiant 14:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)