Talk:Parvati

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)

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 Wikipedia ? 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)