Talk:Parvati

Parvati's image

• Current image
  Current image
• 
  Alternate #1

The current image (left) was being used before the alternate # 1 image (right). The image on the left used widely in iconography of Shiva and Parvati. The image on the left is highly offensive as it shows Parvati 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 Wikipedia have such an image of Jesus and Marry? If Wikipedia does not use such images as lead images for Jesus and Mohammed, then why users like Redtigerxyz are hurting Hindus by putting such content?Truth only truth (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. File:Shiv-parvati.jpg has an inapprppriate copyright. No evidence of PD claim. File:Parvati Ganesha.jpg 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. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. Do you have any answer to my questions about representation of Jesus and Mohammed in Wikipedia, and their images? We say A for 'apple', not A for 'azure'! What do say about Raja Ravi Varma's paintings [1] and [2]? -- Truth only truth (talk) 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 this Raja Ravi Varma's painting to be of better quality. I don't think this is Ravi Varma's painting. --Nvineeth (talk) 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.LordKrishnaMyHero (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead Parvati image is changed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the alternate#1 ([3]) 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.All knowledge is free for all (talk) 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. --Kind creation (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. 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 Wikipedia commons, and it applies to this article. Please don't remove it again. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In context of censoring, let me ask all the proponents of image ([4]), "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 Muhammed, is it needed to display the these controversial cartoons ([5])? 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. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Breasts are not inherently obscene, nor is breastfeeding. Your desire to censor the image says more about you than about the image. You will note that the breastfeeding 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! Yworo (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yworo 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. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen mothers breastfeed. Children frequently grab the other tittie. There is nothing obscene about it. Yworo (talk) 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, [6], [7], [8]. This isn't the Victorian era, thank Parvati! Yworo (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the argument presented by Yworo 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. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is completely based on alleged offensiveness. That's censorship pure and simple. We don't censor Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article. Except to certain types of people. Yworo (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems Warpedia! I agree with All knowledge is free for all. The picture is not required over here. Dear Yworo take it easy. --Kind creation (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CENSOR. The image should be retained. — goethean ॐ 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the WP:CENSOR 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. --All knowledge is free for all (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the Jaipur image down and added File:Ganesha Kangra miniature 18th century Dubost p51.jpg in its place. — goethean ॐ 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. Wikipedia 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). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 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. --Kind creation (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then Breastfeeding is obscene???? There are no incest overtones. Are we reading so much between the lines? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 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. N. Balagangadhara's research paper [[9]]. Raising issues that contribute nothing to knowledge and upset almost all, and whose truth is unverifiable is futile. --Infinte loop (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Infinite loop, thanks for raising the issue better. Thanks once again for sharing the documentation by S. N. Balagangadhara -- 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. –Infinte loop (talk) 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 Mumbai. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Redtiger, the Kangra image that I added shows Parvati more clearly. — goethean ॐ 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove other Kangra image. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashok Sundari

Know very little about this subject not sure how to add the topic of a the new article Ashok Sundari to this article.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
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. AaronCarson (talk) 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  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.145.226 (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 

Also, Lord Shiva was cursed by Rishi Kashyapa, after he had killed Surya dev (sun god). Furthermore, it can be noted that Lord Vinayak had gained quite an ego when he was able to defeat every god that had tried convince him to let his father meet Devi Parvati who Lord Shiva’s wife. (Devi Parvati, his mother, had requested Lord Vinayak to guard her door while she was getting dressed.) When Lord Shiva himself came to respectfully ask his son to let him meet his wife, it is said that Lord Vinayak had attacked Mahadev. With great fury, Lord Shiva attacked his own son back with his trishul, thus decapitating him. Lord Shiva is meant to represent balance, he destructs when to many evils have conquered the world. When he decapitated Lord Vinayak, he destroyed his ego, restoring balance to his son. after the incident, Lord Shiva realized and mourned for the loss of his son. As a result, he restored his son, with the head of an elephant (another long story), bringing Lord Ganesha, the remover of obstacles, to the world! ( I am not justifying that Lord Shiva was right in killing his son but Bhagvan has his reasons behind everything) Om Gam Ganapatiay Namah! Om Namah Shivaya! Om namo Shiv-Parvatiay Namah! 83.110.58.218 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Images Removed

Removing Parvati, India, Chola dynasty, 13th century, bronze, Honolulu Academy of Arts.JPG as it shows Parvati in same iconography as File:Bronze siva.png. 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. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymology etc

@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 image guidelines of wiki. Again I leave the choice of image to you. Abbey kershaw (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@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 Commons:Category:Shiva and Parvati in sculpture. IMO, File:Bronze siva.png (Rishabhantika, leaning on the bull form) with File:Indian - Festive Image of Shiva and Uma - Walters 543023.jpg (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. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Devi Maheshwari - merge?

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

@CaroleHenson: Yes, should be merged to avoid WP:CFORK problems. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@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?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@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 Devi Maheshwari 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!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Indeed. You did what I would have suggested!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.235.43 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Parvati

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Parvati'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.

Reference named "Flood 1996, p. 17":

• From Vishnu: Gavin Flood, An Introduction to Hinduism (1996), p. 17.
• From Shiva: Flood 1996, pp. 17, 153

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. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

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. Unscientifically (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done, significance needs to be demonstrated by multiple secondary sources. See also WP:SPAM – Thjarkur (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

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 ManbuManbu (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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

introduction to world religion and belief system

pervati and background 49.145.5.45 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)