User talk:Shanthi Yogini

November 2020
Hello, I'm Donner60. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mahabali seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Blessed Donner 60, Namaste! Are you saying that Calling the ancient history or sacred text as "mythology" is neutral point of view? To most of us who read the sacred texts and understand our history, it seems very biased that "others" judge our texts as "myth". What proof do they have? A lie cannot become the truth just because 1000 people say it.

What I wrote is NOT my personal point of view. The word "itihaasa" in Samskrtam language means "It thus happened". So, if something is an ancient history, it is incorrect to call it a "myth". Was this page written by experts on the subject? A lot of the story was also incorrect. I just corrected just one point in that.

Please, a humble request from us is "Stop calling our sacred texts as "myths". We cannot call Lord Jesus as myth. He really existed 2000 years ago. Kings like "Prahlada" and Mahabali" lived several thousand years ago. How is that a myth?

Thanks for allowing me to write my point of view. Infinite Love, Shanthi ````
 * I am impressed by your sincerity and your polite approach. The "neutral point of view" (template pre-written message) probably was not the best one for this situation and more explanation should have been given.


 * I will not revert the substantive part of your edit again (with a proviso noted in the next paragraph about commentary if it were to appear again and I see it). This is not because I accept that the sacred texts can be proven to be actual history. In any event, I will leave it for others to point out that these ancient texts cannot be verified as actually having happened and how they should be treated under Wikipedia guidelines. I would not be surprised if that will happen. The ancient texts often allegories and stories that promote virtuous living, but not matters that can actually be shown as definitely having happened. I should stand on this position. But you have so impressed me that I cannot bring myself to dispute this part, the main part, of your position with you. That is not something I would normally do but I think I can do it here. Please take this as a compliment.


 * I will say this, however, because this part must definitely be enforced: Personal commentary or editorializing cannot be included in an article (("It is incorrect to call this as mythology, because these stories are NOT myths. They actually happened)"). This would be proper only in a discussion or debate on the talk page or user talk pages. Manual of Style/Words to watch, What Wikipedia is not.


 * Please note with regard to changing the description of the king from mythical to mighty that verifiable sources refer to him with such words as "legendary" even if they go on to state the entire story, apparently accurately. https://vedicfeed.com/king-mahabali-great-asura-king/ This also was a factor in my edit. You changed the word about him to "revered", a word usually used with reference to a god. The source I cite uses such words as popular, respected, wise, judicious, and extremely generous to describe the feelings of persons today about him. Is not using "revered" going a little too far toward giving him divinity?


 * Please do not use commentary in any further edits and reconsider using a word like revere when all of the words I mention in the previous paragraph would be more acceptable and are used in articles about how people today feel about the king.


 * Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Blessed and Awesome Donner60, Namaste! Thanks for your prompt reply!

I did not understand what is meant by this....I will not revert the substantive part of your edit again (with a proviso noted in the next paragraph about commentary if it were to appear again and I see it)......


 * What am I supposed to do? Edit again and explain something?****

The word legendary has many meanings. While one meaning could be fabled, fairy-tale, or mythical, it also means remarkable enough to be famous; very well known, renowned etc. So, consider using the word legendary king itself instead of mythical king

Yes, I understand your point about using revered.

There are several layers to understanding our epics. Yes, allegories are one layer. That reveals the intelligence of the writer such as Valmiki and Veda Vyasa who were enlightened sages. But that does not mean that the characters they wrote about did not exist.

This was my first attempt to change the word "mythology" that is so widespread on the internet. I have realized that it is NOT easy at all to change a myth that Lord Rama or Krishna or others are mythological kings. Even the bridge that Rama built from Rameshwaram to Sri Lanka has been photographed through satellite. They all lived for real.

But I am NOT going to make edits in any other page. It is a tedious and time-consuming task to change the "myth" that is deep rooted in people's mind that our ancient texts are just myths.

Infinite Love, Shanthi Shanthi Yogini (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would revert the sentence that I quoted, which is "It is incorrect to call this as mythology, because these stories are NOT myths. They actually happened)" if it were included again in the text of the article itself. As I explained, that type of unsourced conclusion or commentary is not proper for the text of an article. I suggested that you consider using a word other than "revere," which you have noted. I also was not clear but I thought it might be more appropriate to use one of the other words instead of "mighty" but I did not spell that out or emphasize it. I would return it to what is was, but I will not ask you to do that because that is part of our difference on this. I think you should explain any edit you make in the article with a mention of how that is supported in the edit summary. If there is not enough room there, to put more comments on the talk page. You could then put "see also comments on talk page" in the edit summary to be sure people know that you have done so. Otherwise, I meant by "substantive", the important point you are trying to make. In other words, I would leave up to you what to do with the rest of your edit - as far as I would do anything concerning it. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)