This question starts was prompted by a note of caution given by user Keshav Srinivasan which reads:

One note of caution: it's believed that the Linga Purana contains a lot of interpolations, because other ancient works which quote the Linga Purana quote things that are not in the actual text we have and don't quote things which are in the text we have. This leads some people to believe that the Linga Purana we have today is a complete interpolation, but it could just be that it contains so many interpolations that the overlap between content quoted in other works and content preserved is negligible. See page 93 of this book for details.

I've observed similar cautionary notes elsewhere in the past. For example: Here:

the Shiva Purana suggests that it happened close to the time of creation, but there's reason to believe that the account found in the Shiva Purana is a later interpolation.

...or here:

One note of caution: references to Ganesha in ancient Hindu scripture are few and far between, since Ganesha only rose to popularity later on, so there is a possibility that this may be an interpolation in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana. (I raise a similar issue in my answer here concerning a passage in the Shiva Purana.)

Now, I must confess: I find these notes insulting; to my reading, saying that Linga Purana is completely interpolated is an insult to Sãdhakas who are doing various Sadhanas and to devotees who are worshipping Parameswara with hymns of Linga Purana.

That said, I recognize that Hinduism Stack Exchange is not a place of worship, but rather a venue for documenting - as accurately as possible - the nature of belief and worship.

So my question for all of you is: can such cautionary notes be considered informative and preserved, or should they be be seen as potentially divisive opinions and removed?

  • 3
    So, your question rounds up to this - A certain user calls some puranas which I believe in as later additions. So, I will call some other puranas which he believes him as later additions and suggest him to stop writing things on our website and migrate to mythology and history site. Am I correct? Why do you think it is an insulting all the sadhakas? Did he mean he is insulting them or is it your opinion on it? You can write your caution notices as well. Are you asking permission or what? – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 5:35
  • 5
    u take these notes of cautions with seriousness?? The same user once said to me Mahanirvana Tantra is not authentic .... So shall i go on into depression? Read and ignore..read and ignore...this is what i do...sometimes (which is most times) not reading at all...:P – Rickross Nov 27 '17 at 5:52
  • 2
    On a serious note, one should simply post Q and A and avoid posting these unnecessary lectures. Because, nobody really cares. – Rickross Nov 27 '17 at 6:24
  • 5
    @Rickross I disagree that posts like this must not be posted on meta. 1. Users must have a platform to air their grievances/ call out biases. 2. Such biases insidiously undermine and undervalue the answers that do not cater to that bias. In the long run such a slow but gradual expression of prejudice will erode the value of this site by casting a cloud on many legitimate and authentic answers. 3. Now if there is a mistake in the perception and there is no bias, then that view can be presented to everyone's satisfaction and that will put an end to the argument. – user1195 Nov 27 '17 at 6:33
  • @moonstar2001 You don't want such meta posts or u want? Sorry i could not get u. – Rickross Nov 27 '17 at 6:42
  • @Rickross :-D I think such meta posts must be allowed. They are not unnecessary lectures. Sorry if I was not clear. – user1195 Nov 27 '17 at 6:45
  • 6
    OH i was not saying that Tezz's post is containing lectures... I was talking about the user who on Main is often seen as posting unnecessary lectures in almost all his Qs and As. About whom the current meta post is concerning..So, i said to him indirectly- Stop posting those unwanted lectures, just post the Q or the A. @moonstar2001 – Rickross Nov 27 '17 at 6:49
  • Who are these some people? haha, yeah, those are the misguided ones ;) – brahma jijnasa Nov 28 '17 at 15:47
  • 1
  • Let the higher mods not lecture us what is suitable for meta and what is not. – Rakesh Joshi Nov 30 '17 at 20:22
  • 8
    Tezz, I've edited this question heavily in an attempt to focus it on the activity rather than the person. Meta can be a venue for resolving disputes by asking others to weigh in on whatever the sticking point is in such a dispute, but in order for this to be successful you must relentlessly focus on the specific activity that is leading to the conflict. It is not appropriate to take six separate conversations and attempt to continue them here, in aggregate. – Shog9 Dec 4 '17 at 16:44
  • @Shog9 But since such activities are done only by one user, discussing "activity" here automatically means discussing the "person" (to an extent). Or in other words without discussing a particular user's activities discussing the problem is not possible.Anyways, the problem is definitely there and needs to be addressed. – Rickross Dec 8 '17 at 12:04
  • 3
    There are activities that are constructive in moderation and destructive in excess, @Rickross. And then there are activities that are destructive in any quantity. Finally, there are activities that are universally constructive. If I take 100x as much bread as everyone else, there's a problem that doesn't exist if I pick up 100x as much litter from the streets. So establish the nature of the activity before deciding if one person engaging in it constitutes a problem. – Shog9 Dec 8 '17 at 20:07
  • @tezz. Another post hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/2481/7853 – Rakesh Joshi Dec 11 '17 at 12:18

I agree that notes of caution like that shouldn't be added to any question or answer, it applies to everyone not just one particular user.

Views can vary from person to person, some might think Work A is interpolated, some will say Work B is interpolated but in the end, these are pure speculations. There is no way to know which is interpolated and which is not but adding such caution notices based on personal preference is the wrong thing to do.

New users visit the site every day, they could read such an answer and come to the conclusion that because a 40k+ rep user posted it, this must be correct. More reputation gives you more authority in the eyes of new users and they can get affected.

This also starts an unwanted trend - people from different sects will add such notices which will say other sects can be rejected because their texts are all interpolation. And their source would be a line or two from an unknown book floating on Internet somewhere.

Take for example this question on Ghandaberunda, the user just to prove his point put references from a comic book!! I mean is that all left now? Just because there aren't any scriptural references, we have the liberty to add quotes from comic book? In that question, I can't find any such caution of notice which says Gandhaberunda might be later interpolation, even the question says "What scriptures discuss..." when in fact, the title should be "Does any scriptures discuss..."

In the comments section on a particular answer in that question, the user writes

OK, but whether there are many scriptures that describe him or only a few, I'm trying to find the ones that do describe him. There are definitely some, because the article I linked to says that Ghandaberunda "is mentioned in some Puranas and in certain regional scriptures in South India", and it even names one of them.

Now the user has already made up his mind that references to Ghandaberunda exists in scriptures when no one till date has ever found one.

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

I believe such activities should be stopped as it only harms the community. Counter notices can be posted and within no time, this site will become a mess. Also, such unwanted lines of text can also confuse users, for example, I could say Krishna was avatara of Shiva, now this is completely valid because Shiva is one of the names of Vishnu.

New users have a tendency to post their sectarian beliefs but established users should stay away from such a practice.

  • 2
    A user is a user. Why should reputation stop someone to post their sectarian beliefs? Is there any rule that established users should not post sectarian beliefs? – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 17:06
  • 4
    @NogShine You didn't understand my last sentence. An answer should only address the question and not involve the personal beliefs of the one who answers it. Ex - I believe in Advaita but if there is a question on Visistadvaita that I could answer I would post an answer regarding Visistadvaita only and not involve my Advaitic beliefs. If someone believes in God A or scripture X, they could post on those topics and that is perfectly fine but adding your personal beliefs which has nothing to do with either question or answer or selectively using it against a particular God or scripture is wrong. – Pinakin Nov 27 '17 at 17:21
  • 2
    Well, that is what happens all the time but your last sentence is not conveying what you said in the comment. It says that established should stay away from posting their sectarian beliefs. That is not right. – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 17:23
  • 2
    It is also totally wrong to say that a 40k user's answers manipulates new users. New users first of all see the answers and their votes. The user's rep and name appears below. It is the votes which influence new and anonymous users. If the community votes the posts useful, that is when someone gets to 40k or 50k. It is votes that matter and not reputation and asking high rep users to stop adding lines which explain question or answer in detail is ridiculous. – Sarvabhouma Nov 28 '17 at 4:56
  • 2
    @NogShine "which explain question or answer in detail" Except that a part like caution of notice has nothing to do with question or answer. If you think that adds value then what stops the user to add value to questions on Lord Vishnu or Vaishnavism or Srimad Bhagavatam etc..? What is the need for selectively using it against a particular God or a particular set of scriptures? It isn't rocket science to understand what is going on. – Pinakin Nov 28 '17 at 10:54
  • 1
    Will you accept these notes if he says that Viashnavism texts has interpolations? So, do you expect him to add that Srimad Bhagavatam etc., has interpolations? We are not running a Shiva vs Vishnu debate here. If that's the intention of the OP, it doesn't need a meta post at all. It is his choice whether or not to add. Is this something retaliation that if one says Linga Purana has interpolations, one should say Bhagavatam should also contains interpolations? Is this a tit for tat? – Sarvabhouma Nov 28 '17 at 16:31
  • 2
    @NogShine "Will you accept these notes if he says that Viashnavism texts has interpolations?" No. Because this whole meta post is against such practice only. No need to single out particular set of scriptures but in this case, the user is only using it intentionally against a particular set of scriptures. "It is his choice whether or not to add" Such choices are dangerous as they set a bad precedent, targeting some scriptures to drive sectarian agenda is hardly a good practice. – Pinakin Nov 28 '17 at 17:51

So, I want to know on what basis is one claiming that one Purana is a complete interpolation, on what basis is one claiming that Ganesha popularity latter increased only?

First of all, it's virtually impossible, in matters regarding scriptures, to decide what's interpolated and what's not. Or in other words, definitively no conclusion can be arrived upon.

So, unwanted portion of passages like "that is interpolated and that is not as per me or as per XYZ" should not be posted at all. Because that only leads to more arguments and debates. Because counter arguments can always be produced. And, more importantly, because, OP (in most cases) has not asked about it.

And, also, in this particular user's case, he adds such unwanted passages before or after his main posts just to promote his sectarian biases, a practice which also is to be condemned, specially because he is trying to do so by attempting to demean important scriptures and beliefs of many other Hinduism practitioners and aspirants.

Secondly, if the question is not asking about interpolation issues at all , then certainly such passages, if posted, should be edited out of the concerned posts. We can do it ourselves or we can flag them seeking a moderator's attention.

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

No, IMO it should not be allowed. The posts which are about interpolation issues, or about what "scholars" think on such and such scripture being interpolated or not-saving those cases obviously.

So, I suggest him to keep his scholarly works in his pocket or he can express it in sites like Mythology SE or History SE which maybe suitable place to do so.

Well said, exactly my view too. :)

  • 4
    Why do you hold the view that Keshav Srinivasan should put his scholarly knowledge in his pocket and he should move to other sites to post his answers? – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 9:32
  • 3
    The original sentence which i replied to is " keep his scholarly works in his pocket" ... And, i agreed with this sentence, From where did scholarly knowledge come into the picture? Also, it's not about his scholarly knowledge but about opinions of those persons whom he considers as scholars.. Also to answer ur Why? - Because they are unwanted. Who has asked for those additional notices more so when they can neither be proven or dis-proven. @NogShine – Rickross Nov 27 '17 at 11:40
  • 2
    An example- There is currently a Q on main asking about some verses from Garuda Purana asking why the verses are praising Lord Shiva?..Suppose you answer giving the location of the verses and then add " Note of caution- These verses believed to be interpolated as per me or as per XYZ- So read those with grain of salt".. Now, that's purely unwanted. And even a layperson can understand why he is doing so. @NogShine – Rickross Nov 27 '17 at 11:43

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

I definitely recommend not to add such "notes on interpolations". Finding "Interpolations" in scriptures is a complex job and no two scholars or Acharyas have same opinion on all interpolations in various Hindu scriptures. More importantly, OP has never asked about interpolations in those posts and these notes are redundant.

A user tend to believe some portions of scriptures which don't suit his/her philosophy are interpolations. If every user adds such notes at end of their answers in which they don't believe, site will be difficult to maintain and these notes generate unnecessary comments and debates.

For example, an Advaitin has to post an answer what only scripture says, be it Bhagavata Purana or Shiva Purana and what Acharyas like Shankaracharya or Ramanujacharya or Abhinavagupata or others say. He/She can even explain Acharyas words in his own words. But he/she can't use answers to prove Vishnu-Shiva equality even if question is not about their equality.

He/She can't post an answer saying some particular chapter of Shiva Purana, which say "Rudra is Supreme to Vishnu", is interpolated just to uphold his personal philosophy (it is not difficult to find books on interpolations). The later portion of answer is not required and question didn't ask anything about interpolations. If he does the same thing for many of his answers to uphold his philosophy, users of other philosophies will start adding their notes to uphold their philosophies to retort other user. This behavior turns detrimental to community and site will be difficult to maintain.

So, i suggest everyone to not add such notes, unless question is about interpolations.


I have observed instances/forms of concern trolling by this user. Slipping these notes about interpolations is one form of such concern trolling. I call for a deep review of this user's posts subtly trying to undermine or show advaita in a poor light by not reading texts in their entirety, and taking quotes out of context.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 4 '17 at 5:55
  • 1
    The comments need to be moved back here.they are part of the discussion not idle chitchat. @keshavsrinivasan - request you to step down from moderating because you are taking decisions which are not in the common interest of all the users. – user1195 Dec 4 '17 at 9:08

why should not I also quote some other scholarly works which say like Bhagavata Purana is post Ramanuja work, Vishnu purana got it's complete form during about 7th CE, Vishnu is just a helper of Indra in RigVeda and latter texts like Puranas were made just to glorify him etc.... etc...

Yes, if you want to add caution of notices like Bhagavata Purana, Vishnu Purana etc., are later interpolations and not true, then yes, you may add it. There is no objection from anyone. There's no one stopping you to do so.

To me it sounds like this. A certain user has added some notes of caution saying a Purana you strongly believe as a later text and inauthentic work. So, you will also add some cautions of notes saying that some texts he believes in as later texts.

Remember that the same rule applies to you too. If you start giving some notices to your posts, then is it not wrong according to you following your logic? After couple of months, we may also see a meta post from another user saying that you should put your scholarly works in your back pocket and go to other stack exchange site. I really don't want such meta posts or the outcome.

You are allowed to write whatever you want until it is about Hinduism but take care to post references for that. As we know, "Citations are mandatory for this site".

Regarding, the claims about Radha and having tantras dedicated to her is not the matter to be addressed on meta.

Now, I'm not happy with this paragraph. Let me remind you of the motto of Stack Exchange.

Anybody can ask question. Anybody can answer. The best answers are upvoted to the top.

This is the motto of all the stack exchange sites. Hinduism is not an exception.

By saying that Linga Purana is completely interpolated, he is insulting Purana itself.

Did the user specifically say that he insults Linga Purana? Isn't this your assumption? He cited a book to back up his claim. So, I think tat should be enough for supporting. You said that it was written by 'some' scholar and objected the book. To write an answer, it doesn't matter who wrote the book. All the books about Hinduism are accepted on our site. The origin of the author of the book and his background is not of importance. All are considered sources only. There is no bias in it. If the book is wrong, then say it to the author of the post and down vote the answer because the answer is wrong.

He is insulting Sãdhakas who are doing various Sadhanas like Vajreshwari Vidya, Mrityunjaya sadhana based on Linga Purana; he is insulting devotees who are worshipping Parameswara with hymns of Linga Purana.

Above part is purely speculation. There is no proof of it.

So, I suggest him to keep his scholarly works in his pocket or he can express it in sites like Mythology SE or History SE which maybe suitable place to do so.

This paragraph gives me a strong feeling that the whole meta post is targetted at a single user. Keshav Srinivasan has been with the site before it entered private beta. He has written some good answers and posted good questions which helped the site to get its shape. Every user's contribution is valuable to a site. Even if they post a single question or an answer.

By what authority are you suggesting that he should not post his questions or answers here? Is this a personal thing? You have no right to deny an answer from any user or ask them to stop contributing because user is not important here, content is.

Why do you suggest him stopping contributing to the site? I ask who are you to ask another user to stop contributing? No other user can't say another user to stop contributing. If you don't like his posts, then it is okay. If you find any wrong in his pots, downvote. If there is really wrong in the post, flag for moderator intervention.

Note of Caution: We can also come of with tons of scholarly works and quote in last section of answer and in that case you might find it difficult.

Who is 'you' and 'we' in the passage and is it a warning to someone? I don't understand it but you can come up with any scholarly work. I don't think there's no one here to find it difficult. If you are trying to counter attack these type of notes of caution with your own, it won't be good for the site. Hinduism.stackexchange is not a correct site for war of words between faiths.

It is not a Hindu website. It is a website run by stackexchange about Hinduism.

I will ask why are you suggesting him to go to mythology.SE or History.SE? Do you think they do not support Hinduism? Why are you naming those sites? What is the intention behind naming them? Are they relevant at all in this matter?

  • 6
    "After couple of months, we may also see a meta post from another user saying that you should put your scholarly in your back pocket and go to other stack exchange site. I really don't want such meta posts or the outcome." If you really don't want such meta posts, then you should suggest to remove them which even doesn't remotely address question i.e, here "notes of caution". All these notes of caution are redundant and they are imparting sectarian biases. – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 9:31
  • 5
    Instead of saying OP gets same treatment if he adds "notes of caution", you should have suggested to remove other Notes of caution as they simply are not required to answer the question. – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 9:34
  • 2
    @TheDestroyer Are they imparting sectarian biases? Is that what this is all about? Because it is against a sect? I didn't know that. Thanks for telling. There were discussions under the answers why they are considered interpolations or not considered interpolations. Keshav gave a reason why they are considered later additions. Didn't he? He quoted a book too. I don't ask anyone to remove user's opinions from the post. I DV or flag them. I ask when there are foul words or offensive words. What happened when Tezz asked to remove those sentences? You may ask the post owner for that one. – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 9:44
  • 2
    @TheDestroyer How do you support a user asking another user to put their scholarly works or moving to other site? Who has given the authority to ask so? Is it supported by SE? – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 9:46
  • 2
    Do you really think Tezz raised this issue just to highlight some user? He can calmly add "notes of caution" against other scriptures. If he wants to add them, what is use of raising this issue? This needs to be seen from broader perspective. Anyone can search "name of scripture" + interpolation in google books and he/she gets many books and they can quote in answers, – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 9:48
  • 2
    "Who has given the authority to remove so? Is it supported by SE?" Parts of answer that doesn't answer the question can be removed . This is not stopping a specific user from answering. – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 9:48
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer It is a discussion. Don't you know it? Not a support. It is okay to add some questions in the answer. And if it is not targetted, then why the paragraph? – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 9:50
  • 4
    Tezz didn't say that Keshav should move to other sites, all he said that if he wants to add his notes of caution, he may do so on other sites like Mythology or History where it is more suitable, i.e, which is history and which is not. – Pinakin Nov 27 '17 at 10:10
  • 1
    Why those site names? Also, how can one user ask another user to put their works and move to other sites? Caution notes or whatever te reason may be. Are they not allowed here? Can you say why? What is the intention to name them? Are they relevant in the discussion? @ChinmaySarupria – Sarvabhouma Nov 27 '17 at 10:20
  • 3
    Again, Tezz didn't say move to other site, all he said that if he has questions or answers on the authority of Puranas that whether or not they are interpolation, then History or Mythology is a better place to put forward such views. And yes, this is relevant because it starts a dangerous trend - people based on the sect they belong will add such caution notices on every answer and then as a result, new visitors who have no knowledge about Hinduism will get affected especially when a user with more than 40k rep posts such things. – Pinakin Nov 27 '17 at 10:27
  • 5
    How many times has Kesav Srinivasan defamed Saiva puranas with accusations of interpolation and designating them as Tamasic? what are the corresponding numbers for Vaishnava puranas? – S K Nov 28 '17 at 21:50
  • 2
    @SK Do you know how many times people said Padma Purnana has interpolations? How many times people said Garuda Purana is interpolated by some sect? When they said, they didn't even cite their references. Stop cornering one user. If I start taking names, then the comment box will be full. – Sarvabhouma Nov 29 '17 at 4:35
  • 5
    users with no special powers are another matter. Keshav Srinivasan claims himself that he is sectarian and has given ample evidence of anti-Shaiva bias. In a fair world he shouldn't have powers like deleting posts, editing them, putting them on hold etc. – S K Nov 29 '17 at 13:05
  • 5
    Keshav Srinivasan, agreeing with the owner of a really toxic website has written right here that "Now you're right that in a deep sense, Vishnu is the soul of all the gods, so in that sense all the verses of the Vedas ultimately praise Vishnu". This is an extreme sectarian view and disqualifies him from being an editor/moderator/censor. He can freely express his extreme views but should not interfere in the free expression of others. – S K Nov 29 '17 at 13:53
  • 4
    @SK I think you don't know about SE format. Even a non Hindu can become a moderator of the site. This question and post is not about the moderation of Keshav. It is about claims of interpolations. A moderator is also a user who has beliefs. We are no one to question their beliefs.We are also not here to talk bad about a website. It is toxic according to you because you don't believe Vishnu is not the soul of all Gods. You are free to believe what you are. Moderation and personal beliefs are two different matters. Don't combine them. And 4 upvotes to your comment... ROFL. – Sarvabhouma Nov 29 '17 at 16:31

Let me start off by saying that I don't think is a good question for Hinduism Meta.SE.  Much of this is better handled through the main site, through methods like voting, commenting, chatrooms, etc.  But let me address your points one by one:

First of all there are many quotations from Vedas by ancient scholars which aren't found in todays versions/recensions. This doesn't prove that Vedas are heavily interpolated and similar for other texts too. There are also recensions of Puranas and when something isn't found in Purana it doesn't make it heavily interpolated.

This is a substantive criticism of my answer, justified or unjustified, and it has no place in Meta.  If you think my answer is incorrect, you are free to downvote it.  If you would like to point out something that you think is incorrect in my answer, you can post a comment on it.  And if you would like to discuss something I said in my answe, we can do so in one of the chatrooms.  But regardless this is not at all an issue of whether my answer breaks the rules of the site or not, which is what would be relevant for Meta.

Oh really! Which are these so called ancient works and which are the quotations that are not found. At least I know that one ancient work is Agama Pramanya of Yamunacharya where two quotes from Linga Purana are quoted and both are found in Linga Purana as I have answered.

If you would like to know which ancient works these are, you can look in the book I cited.  But again, this is a criticism of the substantive accuracy of my answer, not about its conformity to rules.

Who are these some people? Are they propagators of Hinduism? Are they ancient Acharyas? Are they some western scholarly works? He gave a book of some author. On reading surfacely this book contains things like: "This Kurma Purana passage contains things of Saivite origin and it also contains somewhat principles of Pashupata so it is of early origin and can't be latter than 700 AD." Oh so, this is the scholarly level of book. Interesting!

Now I am a Hindu, and as such I believe that the Kurma Purana was composed by Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa over 5000 years ago, not any time in the vicinity of 700 AD.  But we must keep in mind that this is not a Hindu website, but a website about Hinduism. And as such it is fine to quote the viewpointsof scholarly works about Hinduism, even ones written by Western Indologists.

Narada Purana contains Anukramani of every Purana and in the description of Linga Purana, it perfectly matches with the present Linga Purana Version. So, how is it that it is a complete interpolation? Obviously you may claim Narada Purana is also intetpolation. Nice!

This is again a substantive argument against my the correctness of my answer, and again it is irrelevant to Meta.

Note that the references of Lingodbhavam are found in plenty of poems of Sambandar (western dating 7th CE) and in also Tirumantiram(5th CE western dating), even the Skambha Sukta contains the reference that Prajapati taking a form of bird and going up towards Skambha. So, I'm not sure what is suggesting him to take it as interpolation.

Then you are free to raise that issue with me on the main site.

Oh so it's based on conclusion of scholars based on things like style of languages. Ok I see. If I see based on style of languages there are plenty of scholarly works which say that except Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya nearly all other Upanishads are post Buddhist, so whenever I quote from other Upanishads am I allowed to write: "One note of caution: These Upanishads like Mundaka and Prashna which I have quoted above are considered by many scholars to be post Buddhist so take it with a grain of salt."

Yes, you are allowed to say that.  Now as a Hindu, I think you would be wrong to say that, but again this is not a Hindu website, but a website about Hinduism.  We welcome people from all points of view here, as long as they follow the rules.

Or should I write: ... Or should I write: ... Or should I write: ... Or should I write:

Yes, are you allowed to say all of those things, whether I agree with those things or not.  If you are an atheist and you are answering a question on what the earliest scriptural reference to the caste system is, you can post a quote from the Purusha Sukta and and say that it's considered an interpolation by Western Indologists.  That would be perfectly relevant to answering the question, and while Indisagree with the notion that the Purusha Sukta is an interpolation, it would not be against the rules of the site to post.

So, I want to know on what basis is one claiming that one Purana is a complete interpolation, on what basis is one claiming that Ganesha popularity latter increased only?

Again, I'm perfectly happy to answer that, but Meta is the wrong place to do so.

Ganesha is son of Parameswara and Shakti. He is in exalted position always.

You don't need to tell me that.  Have you seen my room?  But again, this is irrelevant to Meta.

So, on what basis is he making the claim. If his basis is some so called scholarly works, why should not I also quote some other scholarly works which say like Bhagavata Purana is post Ramanuja work, Vishnu purana got it's complete form during about 7th CE, Vishnu is just a helper of Indra in RigVeda and latter texts like Puranas were made just to glorify him etc.... etc...

Yes, you are free to quote such scholarly works.  And if people disagree with you, it should be handled through voting, commenting, etc, not through moderation.

So, first of all I ask the community whether these types of activites are allowed or not?

Yes, discussing interpolations in Hindu scripture is completely allowed on this site. And moreover, when I discuss interpolations, it is completely relevant to the answer at hand. If I post a story based on some Purana, and I think there's good evidence that the story is an interpolation in that Purana, then it serves the accuracy of the answer to mention that fact.

By saying that Linga Purana is completely interpolated, he is insulting Purana itself, he is insulting Sãdhakas who are doing various Sadhanas like Vajreshwari Vidya, Mrityunjaya sadhana based on Linga Purana; he is insulting devotees who are worshipping Parameswara with hymns of Linga Purana.

I am not insulting anyone. To make a statement of fact, especially when backed up by sources as I did in the Linga Purana case, is not an insult. Now if you disagree with the correctness of the statement, again that is to be handled by voting, commenting, etc. But for the record, I do not condemn the Sadhana of anyone. It could be that that Sadhana is perfectly authentic, but it may not originally be from the Linga Purana, but may instead be from some other scripture.

So, I suggest him to keep his scholarly works in his pocket or he can express it in sites like Mythology SE or History SE which maybe suitable place to do so.

No, this is just as suitable place to post such things as Mythology.SE and History.SE. Again, this is not a Hindu website, but a website about Hinduism.

We can also come of with tons of scholarly works and quote in last section of answer and in that case you might find it difficult.

You are free to do so, if you think the statements you are making and the works you are citing are correct. But if you want to do it as some kind of retaliation, I would advise against it.

  • 8
    The main issue of question is "not to refute your views" and i think OP is very well aware of such rules. It's about "Note of cautions" which don't add anything to answer other than imposing your personal beliefs. Assume what happens to site if every user posts such notes of caution in his answers and it's not even difficult to find such references, site will become mess. There will be debates and such notes will produce unnecessary comments. Honestly, no one can find interpolations accurately. Why to post such notes when OP has never asked or add no value to answer. – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 16:23
  • 2
    @TheDestroyer I post such notes only when they do add value to the answer. For instance, when they serve to indicate that what I said earlier in the answer might not be fully accurate, that serves the interest of the accuracy of the answer. Of course, it may be that someone might disagree with the substance of what I'm saying, but that should be handled through voting, not through moderation. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 27 '17 at 16:29
  • 6
    It's not even difficult to see some trend here. None of your questions has such notes about Bhagavata Purana, Narayaniya section of Mahabharata or any scriptures which praise Vishnu. So, these notes are your opinions although they are substantiated by some scholars. If you wanted to post such information which add value to post, then you should add such notes when you answer with Purusha Sukta or Bhagavata Purana , just like you are obliged to post an answer "Shiva is supreme" if Padma Purana says, even though you don't believe it but cites it as it is from Padma Purana. (1/2) – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 16:39
  • 5
    But you are just posting these notes for some Puranas which don't fit your narration or Sampradaya and even saying some Gods were raised to position. For you, these statements are factually correct and nothing wrong in that notion at personal level, as you might think these statements are for better accuracy. It's like not believing Shiva is Supreme even if Padma Purana says it. But when we see from broad perspective, you are quoting your opinions here, Words of users with 45+ rep adds more weight to new users and it's like imposing your views in your answers. (2/2) – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 16:39
  • 5
    It is certainly a post for meta. Comments can easily be deleted by mods. Many of mine which disagreed with mod practices or your actions and their justifications (which were highly biased and targeted) are no longer there on the site. Besides, this post is not just about one answer but about widespread actioning. The OP is questioning the validity, veracity and motivation of such actioning which for all intents and purposes appears biased. You can certainly refute the perceived bias but challenging the placement of the question because it is inconvenient is not in order. – user1195 Nov 27 '17 at 17:30
  • 9
    If everyone would starts writing "Note to caution" according to whatever research they have, the site will become highly mess, full of discrepancies, contradictions & inauthenticity. This will generate more Hindu atheists & also would present wrong image of Hinduism to new comers or one who wants to learn about Hindusim. – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Nov 27 '17 at 17:36
  • @moonstar2001 I undeleted my comments. – The Destroyer Nov 27 '17 at 18:16
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer Why were they deleted in the first place? – user1195 Nov 27 '17 at 18:37
  • 1
    @moonstar2001 This particular mod Destroyer is manipulative in terms of using comment moderation tools for personal gain. Check out my question here for reference. – DirghaChintayanti Nov 27 '17 at 23:59
  • 3
    @moonstar2001 I deleted first at request of other Mod as it involves debate between two mods and two mods debating on public platform might show community bad but i asked other Mods and they said such disagreement is fine. – The Destroyer Nov 28 '17 at 3:23
  • 3
    @LakshmiNarayanan That has not been my experience Lakshmi. Thedestroyer is fair from whatever I have seen. In fact, he scolded me as well once on a matter. In this particular instance, he deleted his own comments because they show Keshav in a bad light. I have seen manipulation for personal gain on the part of the "legacy" mod but not this one. – user1195 Nov 28 '17 at 4:08
  • 1
    @LakshmiNarayanan Not necessarily. It is not difficult to distinguish between repeated and widespread expression of bias and perceived bias which is limited in transactional value and is not widespread in impact. That is not to say that the latter is not valid or need not be addressed but the former is dangerous on a larger scale and must necessarily be addressed. And immediately. – user1195 Nov 28 '17 at 5:08
  • 2
    1. It is easy to see, unless one is sleeping, what u are doing here or at least has been trying doing. What the people of say blogs like narayanastra try to do openly, you try to do here the same but covertly. Because, the rules are not permitting u to do that openly. Now, that is not right at all. We have already made to u to remove completely unwanted messages from ur answers which were trying to spread a sectarian propoganda or which were trying to proselytize. @KeshavSrinivasan – Rickross Nov 28 '17 at 5:54
  • 2
    2. Those messages or notices are completely unwanted because none asked for them, more importantly they are just speculations as interpolations in most cases can not be proven. Also, we can't really guaranty the quality of books you read and quote from. Are we supposed to go through a random book entirely to check it's credentials? @KeshavSrinivasan – Rickross Nov 28 '17 at 5:54
  • 4
    3. So, this thread is very much needed. Because it is exposing ur subtly hidden tactics – Rickross Nov 28 '17 at 5:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .