Talk:Shambhala

kulika or kalkin

The name for the king of Shambhala (but Sambhala in Sanskrit manuscripts!) "kulika" has unfortunately gained currency. This is in fact a reconstruction from Tibetan Rigs-ldan, as far as I know going all the way back to Csoma de Koros and then reinforced by Roerich's translation of the Blue Annals. In fact, the form which appears in Sanskrit is Kalkin, or the Nominative Kalkī (long i) - cf. the Calcutta edition of the Kālacakratantra or its commentary, the Vimalaprabhā (so far only in a single edition, from Sarnath). I think this should be changed. User:86.101.83.189 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't this one archive? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 04:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently there was some sort of invisible character in the signature that prevented the bot from recognizing it as a date. I've removed it, I think it should now be archived automatically eventually. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Very bad

I am just disgusted to see how wikipedia turned down all pages related to mythology and esoterism to primary school summaries. It was not like that before, because all these topics belong to knowledge. But for you, knowledge is just science. And you are deleting anything which doesn't follow that faith, the faith in god science. Agarthi, Shambala, there are tons and tons of things to write about them, tons of studies, tons of debates. Not this very painful summary you put. 37.161.25.52 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I will again be super super nice and ask you to read wp:npa, wp:rs wp:fringe and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

To answer the charge, Western esotericism is a respected academic field within religious studies. But that is not to say that Western esotericism scholars are gullible believers in the reality of Agartha and Shambhala. The broad consensus at English Wikipedia is that Guenon and other gurus like him did not write WP:RS. We have standards, you know. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Aggressive archiving

@JayBeeEll I think the aggressive archiving will stay unless we change the archiving system but it was previously glitching due to really old comments and that is gonna be fixed now Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 04:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Thanks; I did adjust the archiving settings to something less aggressive when I reverted (though in practice it may not matter too much, given how old most of these discussions are). The IP has been going around doing this to hundreds of articles, in many cases arranging that the talk-pages be completely emptied (or left with only unsigned/malformatted comments like the ones you fixed). Happy editing, --JBL (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Shambala,Agartha

Don't try to change the history. @:-Shri Krishna 113.211.140.141 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent and nonsensical disruptive editing by user Slatersteven

@Slatersteven: I explained the reason for my edits in the edit summaries and on your talk page, but I can see clearly that you refuse to understand.

1. I deleted three sections in the article Shambhala because they were completely unreferenced and tagged as WP:OR in my first edit ([1]), which you have reverted without a valid reason to restore unsourced content ([2]);
2. I explained to you the reason for which said unsourced content has been deleted ([3]), i.e. because it was completely unreferenced and tagged as WP:OR, and you reverted my edits again ([4]), including my addition of sourced content with academic references for no reason ([5], [6]), after which you reverted your own edits by deleting the same unsourced content that I had originally removed and the article was identical to my last revision before you started your own nonsensical disruptive editing, only to make a useless point about "who is going to have the last word here", apparently;
3. I restored the article to the last good revision without the unsourced section on popular culture ([7], [8]) and you reverted my edits again without justification, by restoring the same unsourced section and in blatant violation of the WP policies WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:UNSOURCED, and WP:OR.

Now, will you explain in detail the reason for this clueless edit warring on your part, that you started out of nowhere and in blatant violation of the aforementioned WP policies? GenoV84 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

First read wp:civility.

I removed all the content that had a CN tags, and all the unsourced content as well, I however restored sourced content.

The last good version, would have been the one before your first edit.

Some of your additions also seemed to be unsourced, or unneeded (do we need to know Himmler held the rank 4th?).

What academic sources did you add? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This one (see [9]): Boyd, James (January 2012). "In Search of Shambhala? Nicholas Roerich's 1934–5 Inner Mongolian Expedition". Inner Asia. 14 (2). Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers: 257–277. doi:10.1163/22105018-90000004. ISSN 2210-5018. JSTOR 24572064. GenoV84 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Which sourced content have you restored? GenoV84 (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I suggest you to revert your own disruptive edit and restore the aforementioned academic source that I added to the article, because you clearly had no justifiable reason to delete it. GenoV84 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What did I restore [[10]] The stuff sourced to ">Bailey, Alice A, A Treatise on Cosmic Fire 1932 Lucis Trust. 1925, p 753" The stuff sourced to "Archer, Kenneth. Roerich East & West. Parkstone Press 1999, p.94", for starters. If there is a conflict between sources, you put in both facts, but who is James Boyd? Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't care, and neither you do. The source that I added is WP:RS, that's all that matters here. You don't even know who is Archer or Bailey, and yet here you are defending sources that you don't even know if they are reliable or not, if those two are academics or not, which is the publisher of those books, etc. Your argument is pointless and ridiculous. GenoV84 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I am stanting that is was sourced (unlike your claim) and stop pinging me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My edit was sourced as well, so there's no reason to delete the source that I added. GenoV84 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also not need to ping me, this is on my watch list. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You know that you can have all three sources cited in the article, right? So why do you want to keep those two sources and you refuse to restore the one that I added? Go on, let's see how you are going to justify yourself this time, instead of avoiding my question again. I suggest you to revert your own disruptive edit and restore the aforementioned academic source that I added to the article, because you clearly had no justifiable reason to delete it. GenoV84 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I could ask you the same, why did you not just add it, and not remove the others? Instead, you decided to come here and accuse me of disruption, so with that, I will now let others respond, as this is looking like bludgeoning. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Because I didn't notice those sources, in fact I restored both of them in the edits that followed your reverts! But you just keep reverting and reverting whenever I try to improve this article, including the unsourced content that you also deleted afterwards, why?

This entire conversation doesn't make any sense. We both agree that these three sources should stay, so what's the point to continue? GenoV84 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)