Talk:Puranas

message: @Onkuchia: How is this relevant to the origins section, "However both traditions show agreement on the applicability of a phrase "itihāsapurāṇābhyāṃ vedaṃ samupabṛṁhayet", i.e. (The Brahmana) should reinforce the Vedas with the Itihasa and Purana"? Your version is also a strange summary, regardless of where we place it. On pages 27-28, Coburn's context is the motto of Puranic studies on pages 27-28. He is quoting Hazra's translation, that the twice-born (Brahmana) who knows the Vedas, (...) should reinforce his knowledge of the Vedas with Itihasapuranam. Can you explain your intent and summary, because comes across as editorializing and OR. If you explain, I will help you and we can collaboratively add what you feel is significant in there to the origins section. I will remove both your and my version for now, while we discuss it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: Since the religion Hindu is actually the Brahmin religion, most peoples of the subcontinent would not have much connection to these text. The article is giving the impression that the common people of the subcontinent, most of whom were not admitted into the Hindu religion, had a very deep connection to thes text. 
It is not seen mentioned as to where all the original texts are available, who discovered them, and who did the translation into English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D180:70BF:D9A:F354:6940:1BF4 (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu  

message: In the intro we have this: "The Bhagavata Purana has been among the most celebrated and popular text in the Puranic genre, and is, in the opinion of some, of non-dualistic tenor." And a reference they give Thompson https://books.google.ca/books?id=3TZmDSr-1msC&pg=PA10&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false 
But this reference doesn't support the statement in the article. I suggest that the reference be removed. van Lustig (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomson as a source on Bhagavat Purana 

message: There have been repeated efforts to add Devi Purana as a Mahapurana. The first citation is the Shiva Purana without any page numbers. It is a primary source and shouldn't be used to prove your point. You should use reliable secondary sources. See WP:SECONDARY and WP:NOR. Secondly, you are misrepresenting the second reference which can be seen here (page 555), which doesn't mention Shiva Purana. The author does mention some discussion on whether Devi Purana should be considered a Mahapurana. Lastly, there is no need to repeat the exact same list as the table above it with the exception of one row. I see no reliable sources (WP:RS) for your claim. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: then add a line mentioned devi purana according to the shiva purana 112.134.216.236 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Provide a reliable secondary source for it. At this point, all the source says is that there is a discussion about it. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devi Purana 

message: Shouldn't the title of this article be "Purana," given that the term "Puranas" comes from a quick Latin pluralisation of the Sanskrit पुराण and is therefore, strictly speaking, not accurate? The article itself begins with the term purana. I think using "the Puranas" in the body of the article is not an issue and is indeed standard across research on Indic literature in European languages, is practical, etc.—only that the title should use the proper term. I suggest that the article also clarify somewhere that the "s" at the end does not occur in Sanskrit, so as to avoid imparting the impression that "Puranas" is an actual Sanskrit word. 198.7.242.150 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the lead so it is "Puranas" since multiple are discussed throughout. The rest is probably best added to the "Etymology" section with reliable sources (see WP:RS). The "Origin" section mentions the possibility of there being originally "one Purana" before there were many, so that should be taken into consideration. As for renaming the title, the move request was already made at Talk:Puranas/Archive_1#Requested_move and opposed. Jroberson108 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see—thanks for clarifying! 198.7.242.150 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article: Puranas or Purana?