Talk:Bhairava

message: I did a general punctuation, spelling, etc. cleanup this morning.  I moved this from the article to here.  As it is entirely in Sanskrit with no English translation, it adds nothing for most Wikipedia users.
   SHREE BHAIRAVAYA NAMAH
   OM NAMOH BHAIRAVAYA NAMAH
   OM NAMOH BHAIRAVA ROOPAY BHAIRVA NAMOH NAMAH
   DUKH DARIRDRYE SHAMNAM RAKSHATAM SARVETE DISHA NAMASTASYE NAMASTASYE NAMASTASYE NAMOH NAMAH
   OM HREEM BAM BATUKAYE AAP DUDARNATH KURU KURU BATUKAYE HREEM OM NAMH SHIVAY
   OM BATUKNATHAY NAMAH
   AKASHAT PATITAM TOYAM YATHA GACHITAM SAGARAM SARVE DEV NAMASKAR BHAIRAVAM PRATI GACCHATI
It might be appropriate in English. -- Lisasmall 14:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contributions to Bhairav. About the sloka, a discussion is started by me on WP:HINDU, please present your views there.--Redtigerxyz 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the welcome! I've done so on the page that WP:HINDU pointed me to.  In summary, I think that lengthy slokas should be placed on a subpage of the main article page, whether they are in Sanskrit, transliterated, or translated, or all three.  Only extremely short excerpts that are vital to the main article and easily understood by English speakers not familiar with Hinduism should go on the main page in an English-language encyclopedia.  The subpage will be there for those who want more detail that would bog the main article down. -- Lisasmall 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this prayer is written in a transliteration that does not allow for rendering into the original sanskrit. (20040302 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Sanskrit prayer

message: * see pages 244, 245
I don't know yet whether some of it should be inserted into the article.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.66.27 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some more background

message: Bhairava sigil, it reminds me of key of solomon Jewish kabalah type amulets. Any info on it? 70.59.140.179 (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting [[sigil]]. 

message: I'm not sure it's authentic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.254.94 (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisdom tree link 

message: Aside from the grammar and cohesion issues, with are relatively easy fixes (and I'm happy to do as time allows), the majority of the material here constitutes original research. Obviously, this is an issue on numerous articles related to Indic religions, and not particular to this article; while likely accurate, we'll need more sources to back any such unsubstantiated claims within the article. I have no doubt that there are a plethora of academic sources to be found. There are a decent number of page watchers here, so any help would be appreciated. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: There appears to be a lot of unsourced material in this page. For example: "Bhairava is an important deity of the Newars. All the traditional settlements of Newars have at least one temple of Bhairava. Most of the temples of Bhairava in Nepal are maintained by Newar priests. There are several Bhairava temples in the Kathmandu valley." There are no citations for quite a bit of material. Before I go in and delete the unsourced material I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on why so much of the material is unsourced or would like to work together to get sources? Thanks, Skubydoo (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced stuff goes with the territory in Indic religions, & many of the refs there are are dubious as WP:RS.  In this case a basic google books search shows the passage is essentially correct, & I've added one solid ref. You should generally not delete such material, but tag it with . Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material