Talk:Parvati: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:56, 21 March 2023 editOtherstuffWP (talk \| contribs)8 edits →Use of the phrase "Hindu Mythology": new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:43, 4 October 2024 edit undoArnold300 (talk \| contribs)128 edits →Is Parvati really equal to Uma and Durga and maheshvari etc.. ?: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
(31 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header~~\|search=yes~~}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{Ct/tn\|ipa}}
	{{vital article\|topic=Philosophy\|level=5\|class=B}}
	{{Indian English}}		{{Indian English}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|collapsed=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject Hinduism~~\|class=B~~\|importance=top~~\|myth=yes~~\|Shaktism=yes}}		{{WikiProject Hinduism\|importance=top\|Shaktism=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Mythology~~\|class=B~~\|importance=top}}		{{WikiProject Mythology\|importance=top}}
	{{WikiProject India~~\|class=B~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject India\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Women's History~~\|class=B~~\|importance=high}}		{{WikiProject Women's History\|importance=high}}
	{{WikiProject Women~~\|class=B\|importance=High~~}}		{{WikiProject Women}}
	{{WikiProject Religion~~\|class=B~~\|importance=top}}		{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=top}}
	{{WikiProject Nepal ~~\|class=B~~ \|importance=Low}}		{{WikiProject Nepal\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Women in Religion~~\|class=b~~\|importance=high}}		{{WikiProject Women in Religion\|importance=high}}
	}}		}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

			\| age=2160
	== Parvati's image ==
			\| archiveprefix=Talk:Parvati/Archive

			\| numberstart=1
	{{Gallery
			\| maxarchsize=250000
	\|width=150
			\| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
	\|lines=2
			\| minkeepthreads=5
	\|File:Shiv-parvati.jpg\|Current image
			\| minarchthreads=1
	\|File:Parvati Ganesha.jpg\|Alternate #1
			\| format= %%i
	}}		}}

	The current image (left) was being used before the alternate # 1 image (right). The image on the left used widely in iconography of ] and ]. The image on the left is highly offensive as it shows ] with uncovered breasts, and quite unnatural for the theme of breast-feeding. Has anybody seen a mother breast-feeding a child with both of her breast exposed? The image shows Ganesha sucking on one nipple and consciously fondling with the other one. To me it is utterly offensive, and I don't see the point of the painter. It can be someone's art but it is certainly unfit to be the lead image. Why doesn't Misplaced Pages have such an image of Jesus and Marry? If Misplaced Pages does not use such images as lead images for ] and ], then why users like ] are hurting Hindus by putting such content?] (]) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
	:: Thanks for ]. ] has an inapprppriate copyright. No evidence of PD claim. ] is old and reliable. Also, if you scroll down the 8th century ellora image, 9th century elephanta image, 10th century Chola image, 11th century sculpture image show the goddess with an exposed upper body. They are symbolic of her fertility. --] <sup> ] </sup> 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::This is not a personal attack. Do you have any answer to my questions about representation of ] and ] in Misplaced Pages, and their images? We say A for 'apple', not A for 'azure'! What do say about ]'s paintings and ? -- ] (]) 06:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Pls dont indulge in personal attacks. The lead image is a traditional painting, depends on how one perceives it. However, I feel Raja Ravi Varma's painting to be of better quality. I don't think is Ravi Varma's painting. --] (]) 09:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
	I agree with the above poster. This image is not a symbolic image of Parvati. It's an obscure depiction. If you want to depict the Goddess in the proper way, you must pick something that is more representative. There are hundreds if not thousands of images that are more reflective of Parvati. Let us please change the image. Thank you.] (]) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
	:: The lead Parvati image is changed. --] <sup> ] </sup> 05:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

	:::I have deleted the alternate#1 () image even from the second place as it is obscene in many ways. 1) Have you seen mothers feeding their babies with both breast exposed or half covered? The image shows breast feeding obscenity. 2) The image shows the baby Ganesha sucking one nipple and pulling the other -- what is this? The painter did his job but his description does not fit the contemporary vision. Moreover, it would offend many Hindus. I think we can live without that image.] (]) 09:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

	::::This is my first comment in Wiki. I totally agree with "All Knowledge Is For All". The alternate#1 image is obscene. I have seen thousands of images and sculptures of Parvati and none is of such nature. --] (]) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

	Misplaced Pages is ]. This is not open to change by consensus. If your reasons for not including the image is that you find it offensive, that's censorship. It's a valid tradition historical image, it's hosted on Misplaced Pages commons, and it applies to this article. Please don't remove it again. ] (]) 19:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

	::In context of censoring, let me ask all the proponents of image (), "What does it tell you about Parvati? Is it a mainstream image? How does the inclusion of this image improve the quality of this article?" Quoting the Wiki concept of censoring in a robotic way does not explain anything. In an encyclopedia article on ], is it needed to display the these controversial cartoons ()? No, in my opinion, and this has not been done in Wiki till now. Well, the cartoons are not censored by Wiki, but they make no sense in an article on Muhammed so they are not included there. An encyclopedia can not be a bin for everything. Like many others, I suppose, on grounds of reason and rationality, that this image need not included in article on Parvati. --] (]) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::Breasts are not inherently obscene, nor is ]. Your desire to censor the image says more about you than about the image. You will note that the ] article shows actual breasts and breastfeeding. Why would we censor a painting of something that is natural and nutritional? Its source is an ''art gallery''. This is not porn! ] (]) 20:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

	::::] has edited the image without even reading the discussion about it. You did not take out the time to answer any of my questions -- neither about Muhammed nor these: 1) Have you seen mothers feeding their babies with '''both''' breast exposed or '''half covered'''? The image shows breast feeding obscenity. 2) The image shows the baby '''Ganesha sucking one nipple and pulling the other''' -- what is this? I hope we understand what a discussion is. --] (]) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::::Yes, I've seen mothers breastfeed. Children frequently grab the other tittie. There is nothing obscene about it. ] (]) 04:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::::Oh, and you might want to read the recent news on the health benefits of breastfeeding for both the mother and the child. For example, , , . This isn't the Victorian era, thank Parvati! ] (]) 04:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

	::::::Most of the argument presented by ] is out of context. Everyone knows that breast feeding is good, this need not be elaborated. Once again and answer this, "Where have you seen mothers breast feed with both breast uncovered to an extent as shown by the image, where the child is sucking on one nipple and playing with the other exposed nipple?" I stay in Europe and over here it isn't so, and I used to stay in India, where it wasn't so either. Moreover, exposing breasts in public as shown by the image is considered an offense in most countries -- I don't know where you could see such scenes. --] (]) 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::::::Your argument is completely based on alleged offensiveness. That's censorship pure and simple. We don't censor Misplaced Pages on the basis of such arguments. Clearly, the image was not considered offensive ca. 1820 when it was created; it's part of the historical corpus surrounding Parvati. Nor is it considered offensive by the museum in which it is publicly displayed. There is no argument which can overcome the fact that this is a publicly-displayed museum piece. It is completely uncontroversial that a piece displayed in a museum be displayed on a Misplaced Pages article. Except to certain types of people. ] (]) 05:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

	::::::::Misplaced Pages seems Warpedia! I agree with ]. The picture is not required over here. Dear ] take it easy. --] (]) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

	Please see ]. The image should be retained. — ] ] 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

	:Keeping in mind the ] policy and the applicability of this image in this article, the deletion of the image is justified. We cannot and should not include all images of Parvati by all artists of all times in an encyclopedia article on Parvati. Well, the image can be used somewhere else, but keeping in mind the extent and aim of the article it is not required. --] (]) 20:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

	I have moved the Jaipur image down and added ] in its place. — ] ] 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: We already have an image in the Kangra style, depicting the entire family (including Skanda), so Ganesha Kangra miniature 18th century Dubost p51 may be considered as an UNDUE. I agree that the Jaipur image is needed. Misplaced Pages is not censored. The breast feeding image is a very effective image stressing her motherhood. Also, as a fertility goddess, Parvati is depicted traditionally with bare breasts. (see other images). --] <sup> ] </sup> 03:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::Parvati is '''not''' depicted traditionally with bare breasts -- in case of some sculptures it is another story and it is not obscene. Ganesha sucks one nipple and plays with another is obscene in many ways, some of them have been mentioned above. Incest overtones are not required here. Please stop the fight over the image. Really it is not needed at all. --] (]) 05:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::: Then Breastfeeding is obscene???? There are no incest overtones. Are we reading so much between the lines? --] <sup> ] </sup> 10:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::::Breastfeeding is certainly not obscene but women publicly displaying both the breasts and then using one to feed is certainly considered obscene in almost all countries. I suppose the argument raised by "All knowledge is free for all" is a deeper one. And yes, there has been a very hot debate over the incest issue. Please read ''Courtright's Ganesa'' (page 6) of ]'s research paper ]. Raising issues that contribute nothing to knowledge and upset almost all, and whose truth is unverifiable is futile. --] (]) 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::::Infinite loop, thanks for raising the issue better. Thanks once again for sharing the documentation by ] -- I wasn't aware of it. His works are quite popular.

	::::::I hope we will come to a conclusion soon. Redtigerxyz, your support is anticipated – thanks. –] (]) 23:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::: I still do not agree that the image is obscene (it is IMO a loving fertility goddess, mother goddess just being a Mother) but like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", obscenity also seems to be in the eye of the beholder too. Though I can buy the argument that there are n no. of images of Parvati, why not drop this one to avoid disputes, vandalism and edit wars? I proposed the same solution for a disputed image in ]. --] <sup> ] </sup> 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

	:::Redtiger, the Kangra image that I added shows Parvati more clearly. — ] ] 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Remove other Kangra image. --] <sup> ] </sup> 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Know very little about this subject not sure how to add the topic of a the new article ] to this article.--] (]) 16:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
	<br />
	This is the first time I'm hearing about this Goddess. It does seem intriguing. Unfortunately, we probably couldn't include this information in this article until some references had been provided for the Ashok Sundari one. ] (]) 05:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


	what is the reason shiva decide to attached elephant haide for ganesha




	shiva doesnt know about he is own son <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Images Removed ==

	Removing ] as it shows Parvati in same iconography as ]. Also the image should not in lead as it is a portrayal of Parvati as a subordinate consort, not as an independent goddess, where she is pictured four-armed. --] <sup> ] </sup> 04:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

	== Etymology etc ==

	{{ping\|Redtigerxyz}} - Thank you for your helpful edits. Two minor suggestions: (a) Etymology section typically includes the origin of words and the way in which word's meaning has developed or changed through history. Therefore I am wondering if the story about Gauri and Kali would be better in etymology section or the History section. Either way, there is no need to repeat the story in both sections per wiki's manual of style. I will merge the two. I leave it to you to decide where that story should go. (b) The new image in Symbolism section is very dark and it is difficult to appreciate any relevant icongraphy-related information. It is the one with caption "Uma Maheshvara (Parvati with Shiva), 12th-13th..." I suggest that a different image be added, perhaps one which shows more clearly, or in color, what she holds in her hand, her dress and accessories. That would be more in the spirit of ] of wiki. Again I leave the choice of image to you. ] (]) 22:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
	: {{ping\|Abbey kershaw}} IMO, Etymology needs to explain why she is paradoxically called fair and dark complexioned at the same time. Uma Maheshvara is the best known sculptural representation of the couple, where she is depicted on his lap generally and look at each other. I okay with you replace with a similar image from Commons. Many exist on ]. IMO, ] (Rishabhantika, leaning on the bull form) with ] (Aligana-murti, embracing Parvati - type of Umasahita) or similar (Umasahita form - with Uma). Also, I plan to reconstruct Legends, which currently has elements of Iconography in it. ] <sup> ] </sup> 04:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

	== ] - merge? ==

	There was a new article created, ], should it be merged with this article?–] (]) 16:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

	:{{ping\|CaroleHenson}} Yes, should be merged to avoid ] problems. ] (]) 01:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

	::{{ping\|Ms Sarah Welch}}, I have not seen anyone have a concern about this. I can take a stab at performing a merge, but it would be better if someone more familiar with the topic could do it - or at least help make sure I'm not doing harm to this article. Any thoughts about next steps?–] (]) 14:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

	:::{{ping\|Ms Sarah Welch}}, I just looked at the article again and realized most of the content is uncited. It looks like all that's needed is add ] as another aka and then redirect. I'll go ahead and do that, and if you think anything else needs to be done, please help out. Thanks!–] (]) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

	::::{{ping\|CaroleHenson}} Indeed. You did what I would have suggested!, ] (]) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

	:::::Excellent, thanks!–] (]) 14:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

	== Wrong God was listed in History section ==

	In the Kena Upanishad the story is that the three gods Agni, Vayu, and Indra (not Varuna) were the ones claiming the victory for themselves.
	The very end of the story it's specifically mentioned that Indra (not Varuna) is elevated above all the other Gods because he was the first to come closest and know Brahman.
	Since Agni first and Vayu second were not able to 'find out who this being is that fills the gods with wonder' Indra last went to where Brahman was but in his place was Uma Goddess of Divine Wisdom daughter of the mountains of snow.
	She told Indra the being that filled them with wonder was Brahman and they should rejoice in him because through Brahman they draw all their power and attain all their victories.
	I have come across two translations of the Kena Upanishad and this is the actual story. Varuna is not involved or if it's somehow a different name for Indra, Indra is always used as the name used for the third God. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Orphaned references in ] ==

	I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

	<b>Reference named "Flood 1996, p. 17":</b><ul>
	<li>From ]: ], '''' (1996), p. 17.</li>
	<li>From ]: {{harvnb\|Flood\|1996\|pp=17, 153}}</li>
	</ul>

	I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. ]] 18:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

	== Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019 ==

	{{edit semi-protected\|Parvati\|answered=yes}}
	I would like to humbly request to add the paragraph to a new section called 'In Contemporary culture'. The link for this is (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.theshyshrew.boomshiva&hl=en). Thanks for your time.

	In contemporary culture

	In the Mobile Game 'Boom Shiva', Parvati is depicted as Mother Earth. After Shiva's vessel crashes into Earth and almost destroys it, he sets out to help Mother Earth(Parvati) heal. During the process of this healing, Shiva falls in love with Parvati(Mother Earth), and together they create the first man and woman, in their image. Later in the game, Parvati(Mother Earth) takes on the form of Goddess Kali and brings down her rage on the Human Beings of the 21st Century for almost destroying Mother Earth and all other living things. Shiva is the one who calms Kali and returns her to the form of Parvati and asks her to give the humans another chance, promising to manifest each human and bring out their pure and empathetic side. ] (]) 10:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	:Not done, significance needs to be demonstrated by multiple ]. See also ] – ''']''' ] 11:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

	== Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020 ==		== Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020 ==
Line 164:		Line 48:

	This article is a mixture of not-understanding the tantric contexts ]] (]) 15:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC) (]) 15:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)		This article is a mixture of not-understanding the tantric contexts ]] (]) 15:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC) (]) 15:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

			:I agree. There are some striking distinctions between the various forms that have been collected together in this article and unhelpfully oversimplified.
			:Not the least of these is that Uma, as described in the Siva Sutras, although a consort of Siva is also a virgin. I'm not aware of any claim that she is also a mother, but that would create some interesting syncretic parallels.
			:I believe it would make more sense if there was a separate page for each of these goddess forms with reference perhaps to the fact that they are often confuted. ] (]) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
			:I think to make it “easier” everything is piled under one Goddess but I can’t say about the accuracy because scriptures beg to differ. ] (]) 21:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

	== Use of the phrase "Hindu Mythology" ==		== Use of the phrase "Hindu Mythology" ==
Line 176:		Line 65:

	Thank you for understanding and hope to see some changes! :) ] (]) 20:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)		Thank you for understanding and hope to see some changes! :) ] (]) 20:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

			:The phrase ] is also used here. That’s a thing worth noting ] ❤️💚💙 ] 23:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
			::Yes, I realize that my comment may have been quite one-sided, seeing that I only mentioned the use of only "Hindu Mythology". While I have not noticed the use of the phrase "Christian Mythology" in this article, I did realize there are many mentions of the phrases "Roman Mythology" and "Greek Mythology." I do think it is quite important that we refrain from using mythology to describe any set of cultures, religion, or beliefs. Although some may believe it is moral to refer to the Greek and Roman beliefs as mythological for it is "ancient," it is significant to remember that at least 100,000 to 200,000 believe in the religion. As a whole, it should be noted that even if one person on this planet believes in a certain way of life, we should respect that belief and not describe with derogatory terms such as the word "mythology." Once again, I respectfully ask the author of this wikipedia page to correct their use of the word "mythology" as I do not wish to step past my boundaries and edit the author's hard work on my own. ] (]) 00:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
			:::I accidentally edited something in the article but I did undo it- sorry about that! ] (]) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

			== Continuous Vandalism ==

			This user @] is continuously edit warring with various editors and is adamant on adding Durga and kali as other names in the infobox of Parvati which is a clear vandalism, he is not ready to start a discussion on the talk page and broke 3 revert rule long back, also this user has a history of running his personal propaganda on the article ]. If you want to report this to adminstrators for his temporary ban or request protection for the page do it or do whatever you all want. @] @] @] @] ] (]) 12:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

			:Isn't the user reverting to the long-term stable version of the page? That's what they claim, at least. If so, that's the version that should remain until a new consensus is reached. (And if not, my mistake! I don't have time to go through the entire page history right now) ] (]) 12:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::It was changed, he added them again. Also do you think that adding Durga and Kali in other names is right, even if it was a long term version? Aren't they her forms. I don't think consensus is needed for removing wrong information. ] (]) 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::@] Thank you for recognizing that I am simply reverting the unnecessary removal of information by users and restoring the article to its long-term stable version. I have not added anything new to the content. ] (]) 12:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:@] I have been restoring the names that have been part of this article for years. Is that considered vandalism? You’re the one who removed these names without justification, acting as if your opinion is the only correct one while disregarding the contributions of others who have worked on this article for years. Why should I initiate a discussion on the talk page just because you want me to? Who do you think you are—the Chief Editing Officer of Misplaced Pages ? ] (]) 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Nope, they were removed several days before, at that time too you tried to revert that edit but some other user reverted you that day, today you added them again. And I am not some making baseless accusation against you, your talk page and your edit history clearly reveals your personal propaganda on this article. ] (]) 12:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] Reply #3
			:::You're just weeping the word "propaganda" over and over like a child without having the guts to point out what specific edit you're talking about, why it's propaganda, or what exactly is wrong with it, clearly state the problem like an adult first. Further, I have barely added anything to the article and mostly have reverted the removal of long-standing components because the article has been built by countless writers over decades and doesn’t need unnecessary changes. But narcissistic users like you want to vandalize it by randomly deleting content you don't personally agree with, and then you create talk pages over trivial stuff just to get attention. ] (]) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::From what I see you are the one continuously whining on the article Parvati's edit section. And according to you long- standing wrong components doesn't need any improvement, they should never be corrected just because they are old. Moreover this is not matter of restoring stable version of the article, this is about vandalism by you. If these names were not added by you today itself and you are restoring the old version, I dare you to restore yesterday's or day before yesterday's version of this article and let's see Durga and Kali names were present there or not. ] (]) 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::@] what do you think about adding names like Durga and Kali in Parvati's infobox, aren't they her forms? Both are already added as form in affiliations. And isn't infobox is for adding mainstream information and major names? ] (]) 15:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::::@]
			::::::Subject: Addressing the Misconception that Durga and Kali are Not Names of Devi Parvati
			::::::Citation #1
			::::::पुनश्च पार्वती जाता देवप्रार्थनया शिवा।
			::::::तपः कृत्वा सुविपुलं पुनः शिवमुपागता ॥४२॥
			::::::तस्या नामान्यनेकानि जातानि च मुनीश्वर।
			::::::कालिका चंडिका भद्रा चामुंडा विजया जया ॥४३॥
			::::::जयंती भद्रकाली च दुर्गा भगवतीति च।
			::::::कामाख्या कामदा अम्बा मृडानी सर्वमंगला ॥४४॥
			::::::नामधेयान्यनेकानि भुक्तिमुक्तिप्रदानि च।
			::::::गुणकर्मानुरूपाणि प्रायशस्तत्र पार्वती ॥४५॥
			::::::Hereafter, by the prayers of the gods, the same Goddess Shivaa appeared in the form of Parvati, and after performing great penance, she again attained unto Lord Shiva. O Muniśwar! Many of her names became famous in this world. She has many names, such as Kalikā, Chandikā, Bhadrā, Chamundā, Vijayā, Jayā, Jayanti, Bhadrakālī, Durgā, Bhagavati, Kāmākhyā, Kāmadā, Ambā, Mridāni, and Sarvamaṅgalā, which giveth enjoyment and salvation. These names are according to her qualities and deeds.
			::::::~ Śiva Purāna, Rudrasamhitā, chapter 16 ] (]) 15:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::For your information, infobox is for mainstream information. I don't need your clarifications, I started this discussion pointing what's wrong with the article and about you continuously gatekeeping this article and reverting the constructive edits. If other users don't care about improving the quality of the article, it's not my loss. Neither wikipedia nor this article is mine. ] (]) 15:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			:@] Reply #2
			:Also what personal propaganda are you referring to? Reverting the article to its long-standing stable version is considered propaganda now? Think before making baseless claims about others on a public platform. ] (]) 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:43, 4 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parvati article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Hinduism: Shaktism Top‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Shaktism task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Mythology Top‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "Parvati is the wife of the Hindu god Shiva"

To: "Shiva is the equal complementary partner of Parvati" Akashiac (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MediaKill13 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Goddess parvati's names

She has many names like Kalika, Tara, Durga but there only 5 or 6 . Agnik Maji (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Agnik Maji: She has many names, they are mentioned in the body. We have included only significant names in the body. .💠245CMR💠.• 14:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Parvati really equal to Uma and Durga and maheshvari etc.. ?

Sati, Uma, Gauri, Durga, Kali, Aparna, Girija, Haimavati, Shankari, Maheshvari ... ???

In the Siva-purana Uma is a consort of bhairava. In the Shiva Sutra, the 'Playful Uma' is considered the 'Power of Will'. She is the active principle in creation. The Linga Purana states : 'All that can create is but a form of 'Uma', here resembling Mula-Prakriti.

Sati kills herself in the yajna . Parvati was Sati's reincarnation after her death. Parvati is transformed into Mahamaya during her marriage in Shivas cage.

Maheshvari is the shakti of Isvara - also Mahamaya but a higher form than the transformed Parvati.

This article is a mixture of not-understanding the tantric contexts Manbu Manbu (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC) (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There are some striking distinctions between the various forms that have been collected together in this article and unhelpfully oversimplified.

Not the least of these is that Uma, as described in the Siva Sutras, although a consort of Siva is also a virgin. I'm not aware of any claim that she is also a mother, but that would create some interesting syncretic parallels.

I believe it would make more sense if there was a separate page for each of these goddess forms with reference perhaps to the fact that they are often confuted. Trishul801 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think to make it “easier” everything is piled under one Goddess but I can’t say about the accuracy because scriptures beg to differ. Arnold300 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "Hindu Mythology"

While I understand that this well-written article was created with good intentions, the phrase "Hindu Mythology" has erupted throughout all Misplaced Pages articles about Hinduism- or Hindu-related gods and can be interpreted as disrespectful. Hinduism is a religion, a way of life, and the 1 billion people who follow this way of life hold its "myths" in high regard. The phrase "Hindu mythology" has been incorrectly used synonymously with the religion for many years, which is understandable, but perhaps it is time to modify that. It is disturbing to simply dismiss the religion as "mythology" given that it is still practiced by a significant portion of the world's population (about 15%). Additionally, as a Hindu myself, I believe it to be quite disrespectful to both my existence and my beliefs, and I have no doubt that other Hindus will share this opinion. Devi Parvati, our Adi Shakti, is a reality for many, so please refrain from dismissing our goddess as a myth. I humbly request that the use of mythology in this article should be corrected. I will also be posting this on many other talks including the Hindu Mythology wiki page.

I believe the article (linked below) put it best...although the words myth or mythology itself do not mean fiction, they certainly imply it. Perhaps using the a phrase "Hindu epics" or even "Hinduism" itself is a start.

https://bookriot.com/hindu-epics-are-they-myths/

Thank you for understanding and hope to see some changes! :) OtherstuffWP (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The phrase Christian mythology is also used here. That’s a thing worth noting Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that my comment may have been quite one-sided, seeing that I only mentioned the use of only "Hindu Mythology". While I have not noticed the use of the phrase "Christian Mythology" in this article, I did realize there are many mentions of the phrases "Roman Mythology" and "Greek Mythology." I do think it is quite important that we refrain from using mythology to describe any set of cultures, religion, or beliefs. Although some may believe it is moral to refer to the Greek and Roman beliefs as mythological for it is "ancient," it is significant to remember that at least 100,000 to 200,000 believe in the religion. As a whole, it should be noted that even if one person on this planet believes in a certain way of life, we should respect that belief and not describe with derogatory terms such as the word "mythology." Once again, I respectfully ask the author of this wikipedia page to correct their use of the word "mythology" as I do not wish to step past my boundaries and edit the author's hard work on my own. OtherstuffWP (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I accidentally edited something in the article but I did undo it- sorry about that! OtherstuffWP (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Continuous Vandalism

This user @Girīnandinī Nandana is continuously edit warring with various editors and is adamant on adding Durga and kali as other names in the infobox of Parvati which is a clear vandalism, he is not ready to start a discussion on the talk page and broke 3 revert rule long back, also this user has a history of running his personal propaganda on the article Parvati. If you want to report this to adminstrators for his temporary ban or request protection for the page do it or do whatever you all want. @Chariotrider555 @Seyamar @Asteramellus @Dāsānudāsa Hbanm (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the user reverting to the long-term stable version of the page? That's what they claim, at least. If so, that's the version that should remain until a new consensus is reached. (And if not, my mistake! I don't have time to go through the entire page history right now) Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It was changed, he added them again. Also do you think that adding Durga and Kali in other names is right, even if it was a long term version? Aren't they her forms. I don't think consensus is needed for removing wrong information. Hbanm (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa Thank you for recognizing that I am simply reverting the unnecessary removal of information by users and restoring the article to its long-term stable version. I have not added anything new to the content. Girīnandinī Nandana (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hbanm I have been restoring the names that have been part of this article for years. Is that considered vandalism? You’re the one who removed these names without justification, acting as if your opinion is the only correct one while disregarding the contributions of others who have worked on this article for years. Why should I initiate a discussion on the talk page just because you want me to? Who do you think you are—the Chief Editing Officer of Misplaced Pages ? Girīnandinī Nandana (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope, they were removed several days before, at that time too you tried to revert that edit but some other user reverted you that day, today you added them again. And I am not some making baseless accusation against you, your talk page and your edit history clearly reveals your personal propaganda on this article. Hbanm (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hbanm Reply #3

You're just weeping the word "propaganda" over and over like a child without having the guts to point out what specific edit you're talking about, why it's propaganda, or what exactly is wrong with it, clearly state the problem like an adult first. Further, I have barely added anything to the article and mostly have reverted the removal of long-standing components because the article has been built by countless writers over decades and doesn’t need unnecessary changes. But narcissistic users like you want to vandalize it by randomly deleting content you don't personally agree with, and then you create talk pages over trivial stuff just to get attention. Girīnandinī Nandana (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I see you are the one continuously whining on the article Parvati's edit section. And according to you long- standing wrong components doesn't need any improvement, they should never be corrected just because they are old. Moreover this is not matter of restoring stable version of the article, this is about vandalism by you. If these names were not added by you today itself and you are restoring the old version, I dare you to restore yesterday's or day before yesterday's version of this article and let's see Durga and Kali names were present there or not. Hbanm (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz what do you think about adding names like Durga and Kali in Parvati's infobox, aren't they her forms? Both are already added as form in affiliations. And isn't infobox is for adding mainstream information and major names? Hbanm (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hbanm

Subject: Addressing the Misconception that Durga and Kali are Not Names of Devi Parvati

Citation #1

पुनश्च पार्वती जाता देवप्रार्थनया शिवा।

तपः कृत्वा सुविपुलं पुनः शिवमुपागता ॥४२॥

तस्या नामान्यनेकानि जातानि च मुनीश्वर।

कालिका चंडिका भद्रा चामुंडा विजया जया ॥४३॥

जयंती भद्रकाली च दुर्गा भगवतीति च।

कामाख्या कामदा अम्बा मृडानी सर्वमंगला ॥४४॥

नामधेयान्यनेकानि भुक्तिमुक्तिप्रदानि च।

गुणकर्मानुरूपाणि प्रायशस्तत्र पार्वती ॥४५॥

Hereafter, by the prayers of the gods, the same Goddess Shivaa appeared in the form of Parvati, and after performing great penance, she again attained unto Lord Shiva. O Muniśwar! Many of her names became famous in this world. She has many names, such as Kalikā, Chandikā, Bhadrā, Chamundā, Vijayā, Jayā, Jayanti, Bhadrakālī, Durgā, Bhagavati, Kāmākhyā, Kāmadā, Ambā, Mridāni, and Sarvamaṅgalā, which giveth enjoyment and salvation. These names are according to her qualities and deeds.

~ Śiva Purāna, Rudrasamhitā, chapter 16 Girīnandinī Nandana (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

For your information, infobox is for mainstream information. I don't need your clarifications, I started this discussion pointing what's wrong with the article and about you continuously gatekeeping this article and reverting the constructive edits. If other users don't care about improving the quality of the article, it's not my loss. Neither wikipedia nor this article is mine. Hbanm (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hbanm Reply #2

Also what personal propaganda are you referring to? Reverting the article to its long-standing stable version is considered propaganda now? Think before making baseless claims about others on a public platform. Girīnandinī Nandana (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: