Talk:Paracas Candelabra

Ramayana

In the Indian ancient epic Ramayana (Chapter 40 Verse 53), there is a mention of, what many people believe, the Candelabra Five thousand miles miles east of "Yava" (Java) "A 3 headed golden flag shining at the top of the mountain with base at the bottom", "The structure was created by Indra to mark the eastern direction" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.48.77 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You still need reliably published sources, and as this is nonsense, you won't find any. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an absolute Nonsense to Comment 'Nonsense' on anything without knowing the sources of the claim. 14.195.41.130 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The source link I gave for Valmiki Ramayana is from IIT Kanpur, a very well reputed University of India.

Ramayana is a well known, well published work, with translations in many languages.

What the claim was "there is a mention of, what many people believe". Which many people believe.

If you read the description, you will see what it is about. Of course, you do need some basic knowledge of the story context. Would you the same for some such 'many believe' for Greek works?

And here is the latest talk by Nilesh Oak also mentioning this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHLaP7g1SaA&t=60s

Can we put the reference back, please? Shashi (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oak is an chemical engineer, right? No qualifications in anything else? In any case, if you can convince people at WP:RSN maybe. But we never use Creationists as proof of anything but their beliefs, and that goes for anyone who takes their religious myths or texts as literally true. So please don't come back without having gone to RSN with your source and the text you want to add. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

1. No one is claiming this as being the textbook truth 'yet'. It is a new interpretation being looked at. Ramayana and Mahabharata are considered epics, narrative based on historic events, told in a story form. They are indeed used by academia to get ideas about the geography, culture, custom, food, dress, administration of its time. They are not mere concoctions or 'religious' in the sense of the Bible or Koran.

2. The exact text of Ramayana is not in doubt. It is extremely well published ancient work, translated in many languages, though when translating in non-Indic languages, many times the translator do a single word translation and loose other meanings. Sanskrit words, like Greek or Latin can have many shades of meanings.

3. In the article, the addition was with the disclaimer as 'many people believe'. It was not claimed as accepted academic truth taught in textbooks.

4. This is such an extremely fascinating find, it should be included in Wiki, the great repository of knowledge.

5. As for Oak being just an engineer etc, that is not the point. The text is openly available. And any well intended interpretations should at least find mention in Etcetera.

6. If this was found in some Greek or Roman text, world would erupt in joy or surprise, not classifying it as religious but historic. Indian source are only as religious as the Greeks or Romans. Ramayana is of the ancient time period, not of modern day 'corrupted' forms.

Why should we deny readers of this fascinating material?

Isn't this how new things are found? This is indeed an exciting view.

Thanks,

Shashi

PS: I hope you see my point. This is not fringe. This is not sockpuppetry. Shashi (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOT. I already mentioned WP:RS. I think you don’t understand what kind of encyclopaedia we are. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to understand in which part you have a problem:

1. Ramayana is not a reliable source, for what it says?

2. Oak saying thus is not reliable?

3. The link I provided for Ramayana text is not reliable?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, this is a new interpretation, and there are links to Oak's talk on a very popular Indian YT channel, and he is saying this is another angle to look at things, and there is even a novel written on this theme "The Flag of Ananta" - https://www.amazon.in/Flag-Ananta-sceptics-journey-roots/dp/B0CP28DPF6/

Does Wiki not have any space for emerging voices on a topic, to be noted even as emerging voices/trends, not as established fact yet?

Thanks for your patience. Shashi (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Take this to WP:RSN. I've got nothing to add. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What is your source? ParijatTKumar (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Source for what? If you still think this nonsense has a reliable source, do as I told the other editor, go to WP:RSN. This crazy stuff is getting boring. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Was it published as a proof that a virgin can give birth to a child? This is not forum for downgrading other communities' religious texts where one's own texts are totally preposterous. ParijatTKumar (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024

Change "History" Section:

Edit the line "The purpose of the Candelabra's creation is also unknown.", to below:

"The purpose of the Candelabra's creation is not confirmed, but based on a research by Nilesh Oak, who is researcher and adjunct faculty at Institute of Advanced Sciences, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA, This symbol matches a reference in ancient Indian scripture "Ramayan" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana). According to which, Monkey King Sugreev asked his army to search in all directions to search for Devi Sita, the Wife of Lord Ram and clearly mentioned the details of this symbol, which marked the end of eastern direction. As written in the original Valmiki Ramayan by Sage Valmiki, this Symbol was engraved by Indra, the lord of Rains, to mark the end of Eastern direction. The detailed description of this symbol i Ramayan, including size, location and surroundings, closely matches the original symbol, as per the research, for which Nilesh claims to have used modern scientific tools"

Reference: Research published in Books by Nilesh Oak:

1. 12209 BCE Rama Ravana Yuddha (Rated 4.5 on Amazon US).

2. The Historic Rama: Indian Civilization at the End of Pleistocene.

3. One of famous related Youtube videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Z1YDSB1IE&list=LL&index=5 Viveksh9 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Viveksh9 Any scientist with a reputation among their peers can get a book published by a reliable scientific publisher. Yet Oak has to rely on publishing it himself through CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform or through Subbu which isn't much better.[1]

There is absolutely no way we are using Oak for this sort of thing. I wish you all would stop wasting time.

Doug Weller talk 13:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

With respect to PAGs, is it proper/allowed/helpful to include something in the banner shell along the lines of "Self-published claims or theories by Oak (and others) that have not been presented or analyzed in reliable sources are inappropriate for this article"? Not that any of the True Believers would read anything within a Talk page banner, but it might make it easier to respond to edit requests such as the above...and the many, many more that are likely to come. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax Great idea. Maybe I can find the time but I am desperately trying to complete User talk:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle for which I have a lot of sources. It happened again just a few minutes ago. And most of the day while I've been online. I've been fighting fires and not editing anything! Doug Weller talk 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would do it myself, but the banner contents I have found on other Talk pages are of the standard/boilerplate variety. I assume, almost certainly correctly, that any attempt I make to add a 'homegrown' comment would break the page, trigger a locust plague, etc. But in the spirit of boldly editing (uh oh) I will investigate further... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible sources but need checking

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153465

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Past_from_Above/7cdfUfxDcTsC?q=paracas+geoglyphs+candelabra&gbpv=1#f=false

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Chronology-of-the-Paracas-and-Nasca-cultures-at-the-southern-coast-of-Peru-based-on-our_fig5_259693469

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1395/the-nazca-lines-a-lifes-work/

https://www.google.com/search?q=by+Ana+Maria+Cogorno+Mendoza&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

https://www.hows.org.uk/personal/hillfigs/foreign/cand/candel.htm Doug Weller talk 13:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

one more source

[2] Doug Weller talk 15:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2025

It looks like Indians are the first one travelled to this area and Indians made or created Candelabra. In Ramayan the Indian epic narrates the life of Rama, the seventh avatar of the Hindu deity Vishnu, who is a prince of Ayodhya in the kingdom of Kosala aware of this land. 128.177.13.101 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible Ramayana Link

Hindu Epic Ramayana has mention of something similar when King Sugriv directs his men in all directions in search of Sita, the wife of Sri Rama (who ruled India from the city of Ayodhya), after she is abducted by Ravana, the king of the mighty Lanka kingdom. He instructs one group to go towards the east direction and asked them to look for a Trident etched on a mountain. King Surgive says that the Trident is “A long Golden flag-stick with three limbs stuck on top. It always glitters in when seen from sky”.(https://mysteryofbharat.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-trident-of-peru-in-ramayana.html) ParijatTKumar (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

At least now we know why we keep getting this nonsense here. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Doug Dear, You have to realize that a little broad minded approach is required when you wade into the sea of Knowledge. Nothing in Antiquity is proven. I am attaching a part of the Link where the mention of the Golden Palm is there on Page 318 of the Volume. (Ramayana VOL 2 Aranya-Kishkindha-Sundara-Kanda) ParijatTKumar (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

a little broad minded approach I tried that line on a girlfriend once. Didn't work. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax This is not the platform to bring your personal sexually tainted remarks. Please maintain respect and dignity of Wikipedia Editing. ParijatTKumar (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There is strong evidence to suggest the Paracas Candelabra are not the same as Nazca Lines. Despite their similarities, the illustration is entirely separate from the Nazca people and their creations, since there is no historical or geographical evidence to suggest they were involved in this project .

<https://www.theancientconnection.com/ancient-rock-art/the-paracas-candelabra/>. This is not a forum for making individual assertions as facts more so by a single Researcher and even then by examining some pieces of pottery < Peruvian archaeologist Maria Reiche measured the geoglyph and found Paracas style pottery which she dated to around 200 BCE. The geoglyph is related to the Nazca lines>????? ParijatTKumar (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@ParijatTKumar I can't understand your post. This is not a forum? What is not a forum? A lot of archaeological work is comparing pottery styles. Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is adding a source that claims that this geoglyph is a pylon. Do you know what a pylon is? And sacred texts of any kind are not reliable sources. @JoJo Anthrax@Hob Gadling almost if not all of this editor's edits to other articles are badly or unsourced. They aren't just a problem with this article. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller This is not a platform for clarifying some one's ignorance of spelling. Truth hurts. Another editor who talks about his Girlfriend in Wikipedia talk is also insecure. ParijatTKumar (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I can also speak volumes against another editor's source reliability. The reaction that I have got from my edit shows that the arrow has hit the mark. Happy Editing 👍 ParijatTKumar (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Again I don't understand you. What ignorance of spelling? No reply to my comment about pots? Doug Weller talk 11:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Doug, I cannot make you understand because You do not want to understand. Pylon means a monumental gateway, pillar, portal etc etc. ParijatTKumar (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Which of those means geoglyph? Doug Weller talk 12:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

User:ParijatTKumar writes above that a little broad minded approach is required, which is not only false but in direct conflict with the norms of editing Wikipedia, particularly the policies related to reliable sources. And speaking of reliable sources, ParijatTKumar presents as a source a credulous, non-WP:FRIND website produced by people who self-identify only as "The Ancient Connection Team." OK. If at first glance you suspect this site is unreliable, you would be correct. A cursory examination reveals that it invokes (for example) pseudoscientific Younger Dryas impact woo at an analytical level that reminds me of Erich von Däniken. Clearly an unreliable source, but it is not without some value: it is entertainingly unfathomable.

Unfortunately, I believe of primary importance is that ParijatTKumar presents here with a particularly strong case of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT, driven by a desire to promote an unambiguously pseudoscientific idea. I suggest to you, ParijatTKumar, that before your contributions become even more disruptive, personal (for example, writing You do not want to understand about Doug is clearly an aspersion) and time-consuming, that you please drop the stick. You have not achieved consensus (another Wikipedia policy) for your desired content, you will, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, fail to achieve that consensus here, and continuing with your current approach will ultimately generate sanctions against you. Nobody wants that to happen. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax Such empty threats work only on cowardly persons like you. Behave with propriety if you still want any recognition on such platforms. You have already used objectionable language before. ParijatTKumar (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You have also used words like locusts on your talk. You think of other humans as pests. Your words speak for you. ParijatTKumar (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you with Doug because I have observed a very negative trend coming from both of you. Using words like "Nonsense" for others is very objectionable. ParijatTKumar (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

After going through all this trolling, do you think I even will consider it worthwhile to have such words (Consensus!!) from opinionated people like You!! Please seek relevance in your words. ParijatTKumar (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

People aren't nonsense, it's what people say that can be nonsense. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Going to ANI now. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Now at ANI. @JoJo Anthrax @Hob Gadling Doug Weller talk 15:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)