Talk:Adi Shankara

Typo?

"while his views were manitained by the Suresvara school" ... should surely be "maintained"? ~2026-57681-5 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

done Asteramellus (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sanitizing

@Bkrish68: this edit diff has a number of problems:

• Changing "Owing to his later fame over 300 texts are attributed to him" into "Adi Shankara is highly esteemed in contemporary Advaita Vedanta, and over 300 texts are attributed to his name" - Why is he highly esteemded? What's the relevance of this comment here? How is this related to the attribution of those texts to him? The original sentence gives an explicit relation, instead of an implicit relation and a discontextualized remark;
• "Piantelli - most" - the lead summarizes the article; Piantelli is just one of several scholars who have scrutinized the works attributed to Shankara;
• Moving fon of the list of works:

• The lead consists of four paragraphs; you unnecessarily split the topic of attributed works into two;
• moved info beyond the tablke of contents;
• duplicated "over 300 texts";

• You duplicated info into the section on "Traditional views of Shankara": "Traditionally, Shankara is regarded [...] ("deity of choice")";
• You systematically changed "hagiography" into "account", obscurating the nature of these "accounts". An aacount is a report, presneting facts; the hagiographies on Shankara are just that, hagiographies, fabrications. And it's those accounts which created the legendary image of Shankara;
• Unexplained removal of "despite the fact that most Hindus do not adhere to Advaita Vedanta.{{sfn|King|2001|p=129-130}}; typically, we don't remove sourced nfo, even less references while leaving half the sentence.

This edit diff changed

While in recent times he is often revered as the most important Indian philosopher, reliable information on Shankara's actual life is scant, and the historical influence of his works on Hindu intellectual thought has been questioned. The historical Shankara was probably relatively unknown and Vaishnava-oriented and his true impact lies in the popular perception of him as a heroic religious leader who re-established traditional Hinduism.

into

In recent times he is often revered as the most important Indian philosopher. Reliable information on Shankara's actual life is scant, but his true impact lies in the popular perception of him as a heroic religious leader who re-established traditional Hinduism.

References

That's a considerable amount of sanitizing, e.g. WP:CENSORSHIP, concealing disturbing facts (facts, not hagiographic fantasies) about him. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This article reads like a hit piece. Even before it tells the reader who Adi Shankara was, it launches into a diatribe about how his fame may be ill deserved. As such, of poor quality. If you don't know what I mean, read the conservapedia article on Barack Obama. It's laughable, as this one is. ~2026-30962-47 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"an Indian Vedic scholar-monk, philosopher, and teacher (acharya) of Advaita Vedanta [...] in recent times he is often revered as the most important Indian philosopher". Then comes an accurate assessment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Not really. The way the article keeps harping on why he may not have been as influential as the mythology around him suggests, seems very defensive in nature. To a neutral reader it comes across as PoV pushing. ~2026-30962-47 (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Giant statues

21st century section revert

Arbitrary header #1

@Joshua Jonathan, per Wikipedia:BRD it would have been better if you brought this to the talk page before reverting back. Could you explain how the addition (Special:Diff/1356082775/1356109390) doesn't violate Wikipedia:SYNTH and Wikipedia:UNDUE? Swirlymarigold (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

See the note; up to you to explain why you think it's undue. See also WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The statues are not about the historical Shankara; they are about politics and legendary tales. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's not make changes while we are discussing. Please self-revert so we can discuss the original edit and the reason why I started this talk discussion. Once you've done that you can respond to my concern that I stated in my edit summary: The original edit was violating Wikipedia:SYNTH because the Ambade source has no mention of the 108-foot statue, but the wording made it sound like that.

Could you also explain how WP:CENSOR applies here? And what makes you tell me WP:IDONTLIKEIT? We can discuss the note after we've discussed the original edit. Swirlymarigold (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the changed version then let me know. But in that case, would you say that the original edit was Wikipedia:SYNTH? Swirlymarigold (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The author mentions the 12 feet statue, and the political context beyond those giant statues; why do you think this context is undue? That was one of the two objections you mentioned, and which I asked you to clarify, but which seems to have magically disappeared from your mind. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, we are discussing the revision you made to the original edit because the 108ft statue is not mentioned in Ambade source? If so, I think the current revision is still synth and undue

Re [[WP:SYNTH]]- Ambade mentions one Shankara statue, not plural "large statues of Shankara." Also, Ambade doesn't describe the 12ft statue as large. And right now the sentence order reads like Ambade's framing applies to both monuments, but Ambade doesn't discuss the 108ft statue.

Re [[WP:UNDUE]]- Ambade is a source for contemporary cultural politics of statue-making in India, but that is a broader topic than Adi Shankara himself. Using Ambade's argument as the unattributed, leading frame for the entire 21st-century section gives a single contemporary political commentary disproportionate weight relative to the basic encyclopedic facts of the monuments. Besides, as the article discusses on page 724, there are many interpretive lenses for statues Swirlymarigold (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This section discusses "Traditional and historical views on Shankara". Either we include Ambade, or we don't mention the statues at all, as this piece of info is itself undue and merely a token of a contemporay view on (the legendary) Shankara; the statues have nothing to do with the historical Shankara, and everything with contemporary politics. In contrast to what you 'argue', not to mention this broader context and background is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a free platform to promote a nationalist agenda. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Re the section heading - Yes, correct. Which is why it is a fitting section for how Adi Shankara has been received and interpreted in the 21st century.

Re the binary choice of including Ambade or excluding the statues - I don't see it as an 'either-or' situation. There is significant coverage of the statues. If by 'token of a contemporary view' you mean that it is one view, then I agree that we can expand other contemporary perspectives on Adi Shankara with proper sources.

Re statues have nothing to do with historical Shankara and everything to do with contemporary politics - which source is claiming it is an all-or-nothing case? Ambade himself says 'These icons result from the convergence (emphasis mine) of image technologies, neo-religious movements, Hindu nationalist politics, globalisation, and Dalit Bahujan demands for equality.' Sources reference that the statues are intended to portray the 8th century figure- whether or not that portrayal is accurate or historical requires reliable sourcing to include that assessment.

Re context- I agree that context matters. Any claim, however, including context, needs to be properly sourced and include all notable perspectives. Right now, the source does not support what is written as context.

Also, could we keep a pause on editing the section that is being discussed until we reach an agreement on how to move forward? That is the reason I started the talk instead of reverting back. Swirlymarigold (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the sources. It seems the cited news source for the 12-foot statue at Kedarnath gives some context - "has been built at the seer's samadhi sthala" which was "redeveloped" after "heavy damage during the 2013 deluge". Ambade source has a cursory mention of the 12-foot statue (no mention of the other 108 feet statue) - as one example of his broader article on statue making / power iconography, and has no other detail about this statue except that "The statue honors" Shankara "who played a crucial role in consolidating the Advaita Vedanta doctrine".

I think best to keep just the details about the statue. Not quite sure, but using Ambade's cursory mention of Shankara's statue for broader statue-politics angle seems similar to the "A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing" example at WP:COATRACK. Asteramellus (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Swirlymarigold:

• Regarding whether or not that portrayal is accurate or historical requires reliable sourcing to include that assessment - read the Wiki-article;
• Any claim, however, including context, needs to be properly sourced - what's wrong with the source? You prefer newspapers?
• and include all notable perspectives - if you think there are perspectives missing, feel free to add, but don't censor what you don't like;
• could we keep a pause on editing the section that is being discussed until we reach an agreement on how to move forward - why? I've adjusted the text in line with your comments; yet you still want to remove properly sourced info which contextualizes news-reports.

@Asteramellus: poor comparison; the article is about Shankara, not Ambade; and Ambade is not a journalist, but a scholar, who's written about the growing number of huge, religious statues, of which Shankara is one example, and not an aside in their article. What do those statues tell you about the status or influence of Shankara or Advaita Vedanta in the early 21st century? More people following that tradition? In which population does it have an impact? Is it growing? Nada. Except for one thing: Advaita Vedanta, or the mere idea of it, is used by conservatives to propagate Hindu identity-politics. That's the relevance of those statues. And Ambade is not the only author who's noticed this; see, for example, Kajri Jai, Gods in the Time of Democracy, p.70: "quantification shores up religious authority and legitimisation" - quite obvious, isn't it?

What does Madhya Pradesh CM unveils Adi Shankaracharya tell you about the statue? That it's big, large and huge; and further? How does it relate to the historical Shankara? It doesn't; it relates to the legendary Shankara created in the 14th-17th century; it perperuates legends. So, how due is the mere mentioning of this statue? Does it help in understanding Shankara, or does it just feel good to have the biggest statues?

And consider this: if those statues are not mentioned in scholarly sources, then what's their relevance for the Wiki-article? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua for the broader context on this - concern is how a cursory mention of one Shankara statue in Ambade's broader article (on statue-making) can be used in this article, as a hook for the broader claim or used in wikivoice to lead the section with the statement "Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics, large statues of deities and other Hindu icons have recently been build"?

Also, I think my concern for WP:COATRACK may have been misunderstood when you said "poor comparison" - I was referring to the structure of the the A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing "example" - not literally calling Ambade a journalist.

Also, I see you added Jain (2021) - since that source does not mention Shankara statues (and seem to pre-date the two Shankara statues), was it added to support the broader analysis of statue-making?

For the other questions you have "how due is the mere mentioning of this statue?" - we can discuss this separately - it seems that the statue related content was added a year or so back and was originally in the "Death" section, and was later moved under the new "21st century" section. Also the other question "if those statues are not mentioned in scholarly sources, then what's their relevance for the Wiki-article?" - can also be discussed together. But, those are different from the concern being discussed here (given that those details were in the article), does Ambade support the broader content added to lead the section on this article.

I think we need to first decide what we are discussing (I agree changing the article while concerns are discussed is not helping here - makes it difficult to see the actual concern):

1. whether the statues fact (one or both) are due (I think we should revert to the original version and start a new topic discussion?)

2. whether the broader political interpretation is directly supported and is due in this article (continue discussing here) - Joshua or Swirlymarigold - please revise this if I have not summarized the concern properly

3. or suggest another way to discuss? Asteramellus (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Revert to no mention of the statues? It's quite simple: the recent building of huge statues has been noticed by scholars. Ambade mentions the 12-feet Shankara statue, and refers to Jain, who's written a whole book on the topic of recent huge statues. Those statues have been added without context; WP:NPOV and WP:DUE requires that other views are mentioned too. Ergo, removing Ambade violates WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Again, the question is: why are those statues built? A curious person would raise that question, instead of trying to erase this context. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan - sorry, as I mentioned above, the statue related content was added a year or so back and was originally in the "Death" section, and was later moved under the new "21st century" section. - so, if we want to discuss what you said "Those statues have been added without context" - I think makes sense to discuss that too - I will start a new topic for that.

Also, I see you added another source citing an article that Jain wrote in 2019 - I think we can discuss this sources question separately at Talk:Adi_Shankara#21st century section - Source concern Asteramellus (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Also regarding the question "why are those statues built? A curious person would raise that question, instead of trying to erase this context."

I am a bit confused about what makes you say I am "trying to erase this context" - would help if you could clarify that - My concern is how a cursory mention of one Shankara statue in Ambade's broader article (on statue-making) can be used in this article, as a hook for the broader claim or used in wikivoice to lead the section with the statement "Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics, large statues of deities and other Hindu icons have recently been build"?

Seems Ambade's Adi Shankara related content is quite limited and just a line of where the statue is:

Additionally, a 12-foot-high statue of Adi Shankaracharya in his samadhi sthal (burial place) at Kedarnath, Uttarakhand, a BJP-ruled state, was unveiled by Modi in November 2021. The statue honours the 8th-century Brahmin philosopher who played a crucial role in consolidating the Advaita Vedanta doctrine (Singh, 2021).

I am not arguing that the broader context is irrelevant. If there are other sources that discusses Shankara's statues, then that context could make sense along with any other context from sources - e.g. I saw one cited source seems to mention some flood related damage. Asteramellus (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The statues are not a 'hook', I think, to contextualize these statues - which is proper procedure, I think - the statues are a hook to incorporate this nationalistic statue-program as a neutral development, seemingly purely religious or spiritual. Shankara himself rejected rituals as non-contributive to 'the goal', namely insight and moksha; do you think those giant statues would have been regarded by him as helpfull and necessary? Do they help, in anyway, to attain a direct apprehension of 'tat tvam asi'? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua - I agree on the philosophical point! Personally, I think Shankara might not have considered statues necessary for realization or moksha - but we can discuss our views on this separately.

Also, Shankara, other acharyas, and their traditions have expressed devotion in many ways - e.g. mathas, icons, shrines, temples, lineages etc. e.g. Ramana Maharshi's ashrama also developed around shrines (e.g. over his mother's samadhi, most likely as an expression of reverence). So I think the broader issue is complex. Asteramellus (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

For the point about statues, I think you may be misreading what I meant by "hook" - I am not saying the statues are the "hook" - I am saying Ambade's cursory mention of one Shankara statue seems to be used as a hook for adding the broader statue-politics discussed in Ambade's article - I used "hook" in the sense of the example from WP:COATRACK.

Not adding the concern in detail here again - but, if Ambade's source only makes a cursory mention of one Shankara statue, can that be used for broader political claim in wikivoice or is it synth/undue? - that seems to be what the other editor is also noting. If there are other sources that directly makes this connection for Shankara statues, we should look at them and add such detail if due. Asteramellus (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ambade writes about the background of those giant statues, and gives Shanara as an example; the topic is 'giant statues'. It's not as if they've written a whole book about Shankara, and mentioned the giant statue in just one sentence, without further explanation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not questioning that Ambade's source is about the giant statues and also not saying Shankara is not mentioned - what exactly does Ambade's source support? Ambade's article has a table with "Political implications" analysis for five statues - Shankara is not included in the table. For Shankara, Ambade has one descriptive sentence and says it is to honor him -

"Additionally, a 12-foot-high statue of Adi Shankaracharya in his samadhi sthal (burial place) at Kedarnath, Uttarakhand, a BJP-ruled state, was unveiled by Modi in November 2021. The statue honours the 8th-century Brahmin philosopher who played a crucial role in consolidating the Advaita Vedanta doctrine (Singh, 2021)."

Also, seems Ambade does not describe the 12 ft Shankara statue as large - it seems to be the smallest one (others range from 33 ft to 597 ft?)

Summarizing the concerns here:

• is that single descriptive sentence (which says the statue honors Shankara) about the 12 foot statue enough to lead the section with "Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics, large statues of deities and other Hindu icons have recently been build"?
• and stated in wikivoice?
• and if Jain (2019) and Jain (2021) do not discuss these Shankara statues, what is being supported by those two sources?

I do not think the cited sources support leading the section with this broader statue-politics angle. If there are sources that analyzes Shankara statues e.g the way Ambade does for those five statues in his table, such details maybe added. Asteramellus (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Re read the wiki-article - there is a difference between the article saying the popular image is legendary and the article saying these specific statues' purpose is only political rather than coexisting with devotional or commemorative purposes. Ambade's own text says the statue "honours the 8th-century Brahmin philosopher."

Re source - I did not say anything was wrong with the source in itself, but in how it is being used.

Re perspectives - I am not censoring based on what I dislike. I am approaching this from the perspective of what do the sources actually say.

Re pausing - I did not feel that your changes reflected by comments, which is why I asked that we come to a consensus before making changes as there is an ongoing discussion.

My take, based on how the discussion has developed - if no source directly connects these specific statues to Hindu-nationalist politics exclusively, then leading the section with that framing in wikivoice is more than the sourcing supports. If such a source exists, let's cite it directly and attribute the claim rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice. Swirlymarigold (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

@Joshua Jonathan Just wanted to see if you have any thoughts on this. Maybe we can try WP:DRN to get thoughts from a volunteer there. Asteramellus (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I have already explained my stance repeatedly; mentioning ghose statues without context is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:NPOV. A substantial part of this article explains how "Shankara" is a 'fiction', created relatively recently; those statues are only ghe latest expression of this narrative. Trying to explain away the obvious is not going to turn fiction into fact. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 01:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua - I do see your stance that "mentioning the statues without this context is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:NPOV" and I had started separate topic so we can discuss that concern - concern in this discussion is with the sources and wording.

Also, for the comment that I am trying to explain away the obvious - I have not disagreed that Ambade and Jain have written about the politics of giant statues. If that political angle is obvious from those sources, seems we can also see - that Ambade's coverage of Shankara is one descriptive sentence, that his political implications table does not include the Shankara statue, and that the Jain sources do not mention these Shankara statues. Also, to be clear, I have not said these statues depict the historical Shankara. Also, for those statues are only the latest expression of this narrative do you think Ambade or Jain support that claim for these two statues?

Concern here is with cited sources - do they support opening the section in wikivoice with "Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics, large statues of deities and other Hindu icons have recently been build"? This is the WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE concern being raised in this thread. Asteramellus (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I read Jain (2021) and see the broader point. But concern, as noted here, is with cited sources and wording, and we don't seem to be agreeing. I think it would be helpful to get another editor's opinion. Do you have suggestions - DRN, RfC, or something else? Also, @Swirlymarigold any thoughts on this? Asteramellus (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The full line says:

Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics, large statues of deities and other Hindu icons have recently been build, including 12-foot statue of Shankara at Kedarnath which was unveiled by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The statue honours the 8th-century Brahmin philosopher who played a crucial role in consolidating the Advaita Vedanta doctrine (Singh, 2021).

References

• The line "Reflecting [...] been build" is fully supported by these three sources, an dfurther explained in the note;
• "including 12-foot statue of Shankara at Kedarnath" - Ambade gives this statue as an example of these contemporary 'statue-politics'.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it will help to get an outside read. I'll ask at the Wikipedia:NORN, specifically whether tying the Hindu-nationalist framing to these particular statues is Wikipedia:SYNTH Swirlymarigold (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I see that you have revised the wording while the discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Adi_Shankara:_WP:SYNTH_in_the_21st_century_section_opening - I think it is better to keep the section to what it was when the concern was raised - so the noticeboard discussion does not become confusing. Asteramellus (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I reverted it - better to not add confusion about what content is being discussed at the NORN Asteramellus (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #3

Requesting admin help - It seems this political angle is contentious and I am not quite sure, policy wise, if I should revert again changes that @Joshua Jonathan made on July 11 while the discussion is ongoing at NORN. Would it be appropriate to restore the version before the disputed content was added? So that Joshua can propose / discuss suggestion for disputed content and seek consensus for inclusion or is there another approach that is used for such contentious content? The ongoing changes (without any consensus) keeps shifting what is being discussed, as we can see in the talk discussion here and NORN. Some form of procedural guidance (not for content) on best way to move forward would be helpful. Asteramellus (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing here that requires any administrative action, so an administrator will not be able to deal with the question any better than any other experienced editor. I am therefore closing this admin help request. You may like to make a general (not admin) request for help using {{Help me}}. My personal feeling is that very few editors are likely to be willing to wade through such an enormous wall of text, so the likelihood of getting a useful response is low, but you are very welcome to prove me wrong if you can. JBW (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks JBW - this was more about procedural guidance, but understand your point - thanks for taking the time to read. Asteramellus (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You're incorrect when you state without any consensus. I've tried very hard to find additional sources, in response to your objections, in line with WP:EDITCONSENSUS; it's clear that there are enough sources to support the present version, or a slightly different version; see Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Arbitrary header #1 diff:

Thank you! I think that change, combined with the New Indian Express source, would firmly alleviate any SYNTH concerns I have. Thank you for taking the time to find the sources and quote the passages here; I really appreciate it!

Reverting back to an older version would ignore these improvements and the input gained at the noticeboard. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding slightly different version, Thanks for removing/changing "Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics based on the NORN discussion - that helps. Other issues are as relevant as synth - including wikivoice and other npov issues. Asteramellus (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, you mentioned changes are reflecting consensus. Consensus was I think that the new indian express source clarifies the synth issue - but then changes includes a few more - e.g. note b and c and I explained that at NPON. EducatedRedneck had also suggested finding words that avoids synth and discussing npov concerns here at npovn - I can ask at npovn also. I feel that you have access to sources closer to the content being added and that is helpful - considering that this seems contentious topic, I think we should cite academic sources, consider npov issues including attribution. Restoring to the original pre-disputed version, and then draft the section here I think would be better. But some admin guidance would help. Asteramellus (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I've removed note b; note c starts with "See also". The "original pre-disputed version" had only newspaper sources; Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The section as it is now is fine, offering background-info on these statues per WP:NPOV.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua for removing note b. For note c, even as see also, are we ok keeping them - opinions and newspaper?

And regarding Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS for the "original pre-disputed version", agree about newspaper-only sources, and that can be further discussed.

For the current version,

1. which projects Shankara as a national icon of unity and "cultural integration of Bharat" - has a single sources, which is a newspaper.

2. Ambade is the only non-newspaper source which talks about Adi Shankara and his statue:

Following the BJP’s rise to power in India, statues of Hindu deities have become more prominent in public spaces. In Prayagraj, ..a 16-foot statue of Parshuram, a Brahmin god known for allegedly exterminating Kshatriyas 21 times.. The 216-foot-tall Statue of Sri Ramanujacharya (see image 3), a Hindu saint also known as the “Statue of Equality”.. Additionally, a 12-foot-high statue of Adi Shankaracharya in his samadhi sthal (burial place) at Kedarnath, Uttarakhand, a BJP-ruled state, was unveiled by Modi in November 2021. The statue honours the 8th-century Brahmin philosopher who played a crucial role in consolidating the Advaita Vedanta doctrine (Singh, 2021 )

3. Two other sources have no mention of Shankara - so not quite sure how that is background-info "on these statues" Asteramellus (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I didn't write changes are reflecting consensus; those are your words. You wrote without any consensus; I responded You're incorrect when you state 'without any consensus'. There is support for my additions; see the comments by Kautilya3 and EducatedRedneck at NORN.

Regarding the BJP's stance on Shankara, we've got three sources which delve into the BJP's appropriation of Shankara, or rather, the legend of Shankara, including a piece by Ram Puniyani.

And no, I don't see reasons to remove links to additional info on the popular and political (mis)perception of Shankara and violate WP:NPOV, especially not when the authors have a relevant academic background and/or are published authors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, for the "without any consensus" - I should have clarified that the ones before the last you did after NORN when I had said The ongoing changes (without any consensus) keeps shifting what is being discussed, as we can see in the talk discussion here and NORN.

Also, I think I want to clarify one concern you had in a reply clinging tooth and nail to merely mentioning the two statues, without providing additional background info? - I did not add that content - and I actually created a separate talk topic to discuss whether the two statues belong in the article after you had raised that concern - that topic was collapsed into this one, but I will separate it and add my thoughts there.

Current changes have helped with the SYNTH concern (Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics) - giving some thoughts on current version:

1. which projects Shankara as ... is cited using the New Indian Express source - a single source supporting this contentious political interpretation in wikivoice.

2, You mentioned above - we've got three sources which delve into the BJP's appropriation of Shankara, or rather, the legend of Shankara, including a piece by Ram Puniyani. - are you considering "Ram Puniyani" (seems opinion article and the wiki article says a professor of biomedical engineering and an activist) and other news sources in note c as a reference or see also? at NORN, when I suggested to add quotes for note c, you mentioned You do know the difference between a reference and a note, don't you? So, what's the reference for "which projects"? Regarding note c, it starts with "See also" - so just want clarity.

3. Another minor point - the section has the political angle in wikivoice but "other" side is missing - e.g. the rest of Ambade's sentence (statue at his burial place, honoring him), the four mutts "cultural integration of Bharat" context (seems attributed in the Viswanathan source to a retired professor), and the other newspaper detail on rebuilding after 2013. If NPoV is the concern, I think this context will be helpful also. And, the section heading also has wikivoice concern.

I actually learned a lot reading all these sources and have tired to give my thoughts and hope this helps. Asteramellus (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, one other side point - Ram Puniyani source has On the other are Lokayat, Buddha, Kabir, Phule, Ambedkar and other secularizing and modernizing leaders of the Freedom Movement - I had a quick look at the Ambedkar and Buddha articles and few sources. The Ambedkar Legacy section has details on statues (seems some unvelied by politicians) with just simple facts, without any political interpretations (some political angle seen in sources), and also e.g. the Buddha has political angles in few countries including Indian politics, but nothing in the article. Also, just a note that Ambedkar and Buddha are covered a lot in Jain 2021 source. Not trying to justify anything (WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL) - just the point that on this Adi Shankara article, current scholarship (Ambade with brief mention, Jain with no mention) and the newspapers don't seem to support including the content per WP:PROPORTION. Again, hope this helps. Asteramellus (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ad 1: the note gives additional references; it's not a particular view by just one person. I also don't see what's "contentious" about this; that the BJP has certain views on India's history and religion and promotes these actively, that the building of large statues is part of this political promotion, and that Shankara is part of these views and promotion, is supported now by six or seven sources; at some point you'll just have to admit it and WP:DROPTHESTICK.

Ad 2: the note is an addition. Andhonestly, I don't see why you need quotes; you can just follow the links and read the sources. But if this really helps you, I'll have a look.

Ad 3: I've added some info on Kedarnath as his supposed dying place, according to the hagiographies. Regarding the mutts, the "retired professor" is Peethambaran:

Peethambaran also shared similar views. “The four mutts established by Adi Sankara have served as pillars of cultural integration of Bharat. He propounded the philosophy of Advaita establishing the theory that Jeevatma and Paramatma are one. Through the Shanmatham system of worship. he established that the myriad deities of Hinduism are one and the same. He fought against social evils and reformed the rituals at major temples

That's the Shankara-legend, again.

Ad "other stuff" and "proportion": indeed other stuff. And WP:PROPORTION: I think we've already established that the political background is not a "minor aspect"; without it, those statues wouldn't even be there. The BJP is perpetuating the narrative of the legendary Shankara; that's what really matters with regard to Shankara, not the statues an sich. And that's why Wikipedia exists: to throw light on such narratives, not to perpetuate and obscurate them.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that there are more sources to support the political interpretation because there are also sources that explicitly state the political interpretation isn't the only one. Putting one interpretation- that too, unattributed- isn't meeting NPOV. How about we separate the factual claims, put them first, then provide the interpretations? A sentence with six clauses is not reader-friendly. We can use the talk page to work out how to reorganize Swirlymarigold (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua and Swirlymarigold. Attribution and context help get more clarity, but with that context, the section now goes some way into broader statue politics than Shankara (seems Jain 2021 says since late 1980s or even before?) - Jain's thoughts on causes, financing? local opposition? (seems opposition is by devotees for the site location?) - I think we should consider WP:PROPORTIONATE. Asteramellus (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this sentence Following the rise of the BJP, which projects Shankara as a national icon of unity and "cultural integration of Bharat", large statues of deities and other Hindu icons have recently been build. was more concise... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - It is more concise, but it brings back the wikivoice concern - I think Swirlymarigold's suggestion works -How about we separate the factual claims, put them first, then provide the interpretations? - It would be better if we can discuss the concern we all have and come up with the wording here. Asteramellus (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The factual claim is that the BJP projects Shankara as a token of Indian unity. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, that's a fact, not an opinion. If you ghink that's contested, that the BJP does not use Shankara as a symbol of unity, we can add that - if there are sources which say so. The statues are a representation, or 'materialization', of this projection; that's also a fact, as established at NORN. I've asked twice for sources which dispute this; to no avail. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

For The statues are a representation, or 'materialization'..as established at NORN, NORN helped with the SYNTH wording - EducatedRedneck's suggestion there was I concur that for NPOV concerns, I'd recommend taking it either to the article talk page, or WP:NPOVN - and the wikivoice concern here was for Following the rise of the BJP.. wording.

The section has changed a few times, and it is getting harder to see what is being discussed. We also seem to keep discussing content after it has already been added - I think it would help if we discuss the wording here for consensus, and Swirlymarigold's suggestion to separate the factual claims, put them first, then provide the interpretations could work.

Also, not sure why we need sources which dispute this - concern is that the statues are a representation, or 'materialization', of this projection is an interpretation of statues' purpose - seems cited sources give various reasons for these two statues. Asteramellus (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've copied/moved part of the info to List of the tallest statues in India, and shortened the section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The "political interpretation" is supported by three sources; no need to attribute that. If you think there is more to say about those statues, you can just add it. But so far, there is not much extra to add, apart from even more info about the political background:

• 12-foot statue:

• Viswanathan (2022): "a 12-foot-high statue of Sri Sankaracharya at Kedarnath, the samadhi sthal of the seer" - that's already mentioned;
• Ambade (2025): "The statue honours the 8th-century Brahmin philosopher who played a crucial role in consolidating the Advaita Vedanta doctrine (Singh, 2021)" - that the statue honours Adi Shankara is quite obvious, as is "a crucial role" etc (though Singh (2021) doesn't state that);
• Singh (2021):

• "the seer’s samadhi sthal that has been redeveloped after it suffered heavy damage during the 2013 deluge." - redeveloped has already been mentioned; deluge seems undue to me;
• "“Adi Shankaracharya’s principles and teachings hold immense importance in the present era. His life was extraordinary as it was devoted to the welfare of the common man,” the PM said" - more politics, giving some of Modi's views, that is, the BJP's exaltation of Adi Shankara;
• "Among the development projects, said to be worth around Rs 225 crore, that the PM inaugurated at Kedarnath were the Saraswati river retaining wall" - ah, the Sarasvati...

• TNN (emphasis mine): "The samadhi of Shankaracharya has been rebuilt at Kedarnath and was monitored by the Prime Minister's Office." - still more about the political aspect;

• 108-foot statue:

• Viswanathan (2022): "As part of this larger plan, National monuments authority chairman Tarun Vijay had approached Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in June this year seeking support to develop the birthplace of Adi Sankaracharya in Kalady as a national monument." - still more to say about the political aspect, as it also extends to his alleged birthplace, that is, legend;
• Outlook News Desk: "The philosopher is said to have contributed to the compilation of the Advaita Vedanta and resurrected a Hindu culture on the edge of extinction." - compilation is correct (Nakamura: "most of the characteristics of Shankara's thought "were advocated by someone before Śankara".[159] Shankara "was the person who synthesized the Advaita-vāda which had previously existed before him".[159]"); "resurrected a Hindu culture on the edge of extinction" is the Shankara-legend, again;
• Mohan J (2023): "The 'Statue of Oneness' depicts Adi Shankaracharya as a 12-year-old child, the age he was when he is said to have visited Omkareshwar. It is part of a larger temple tourism project in the poll-bound state." - I moved the 12-year old piece into a note, in fresponse about your concern about too many clauses; being part of a temple tourism project is already mentioned;

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
At second thought, I've added the 2013 deluge-damage, and the monitoring by the office of the PM. Maybe you can give us the "sources that explicitly state the political interpretation isn't the only one"? I'm especially interested to see how they reject this "political interpretation". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the political interpretation is rejected, but that it's not the only interpretation. Swirlymarigold (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

So, what are these other interpretations, according to which sources? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Shankara statues: "National icon of unity (21st century)"-section or "Hagiographies: Death"-section

Joshua Jonathan has raised concern in 21st century section revert regarding whether the Statue related facts in 21st Century section is due. Concern points raised:

• Those statues have been added without context; WP:NPOV and WP:DUE requires that other views are mentioned too.

@Joshua Jonathan - sorry, please, can you help add any other thoughts from the June 10 reply - I think some details you have there are relevant regarding why statue details is undue.

Background context: seems the 108-foot statue was added in Sept 2023, and the 12-foot statue was added in March 2022 and was originally in the "Death" section, and was later moved under the new "21st century" section. Asteramellus (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding my thoughts here. As I had mentioned above, original editor had added the content for the 12 foot statue in the Death section - I think that a single descriptive sentence in the Death section (where it already covers Kedarnath as his death place) can be added - e.g. to include that Shankara's burial place was rebuilt after 2013 flood damage. I don't think it fails WP:NOTNEWS - it has few sources including Ambade. The 108-foot statue, per WP:NOTNEWS, seems just routine news coverage and I don't think it should be included. And then remove 21st century section. Again, hope this helps. Asteramellus (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

And still ignoring the 21st century political background. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, not ignoring that background - this was a suggestion if we are only considering whether the statue facts are due or not, and also considering related articles I had mentioned - e.g. Ambedkar Legacy section. Asteramellus (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

21st century section - Source concern

Centralizing discussion above

I am bit not sure about the sources used in the 21st century section and creating this discussion to get clarity:

1. Jain (2019) and Jain (2021) sources do not seem to mention Shankara or Shankara's statues build in 2021 or 2023. Want to get thoughts on how relevant those sources are to support the content leading the section "Reflecting contemporary Hindu-nationalist culture politics, large statues of deities and other Hindu icons have recently been build".

Asteramellus (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

"Causal connection", wiki-voice

Regarding this edit diff, edit-summary rearranging so causal claim is attributed, not in wikivoice:

• both Jain (""resurgence of Hindu nationalist politics") and Ambade ("Following the BJP’s rise to power in India") make clear that these 'statue wars' commence with, well, as noted;
• three sources (Viswanathan, Punyani, Shaji) make clear how the BJP views Shankara; attribution is unnecessary here.

Additionally, the quote from Jain's book-blurb diff conveniently shortened "Hindu nationalist politics" to "politics". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:OPINION says attribution is necessary whenever a claim is an interpretation. Per WP:GF I wouldn't characterize the summarizing as "convenient." My summary was the one from Ambade I had noted earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adi_Shankara&diff=prev&oldid=1358572421 Swirlymarigold (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:OPINION also says "Avoid stating facts as opinions". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)