User talk:Dipendra2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Dipendra2007, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our Introduction contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need general help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Hi Deep,

Not sure what you were trying to improve with this article, but we really didn't seem to think it made sense anymore. If you are going to remove major sections of the text please replace them with something comparable or please leave them alone. Also, feel free to remove pictures if you like, but Mother will just put them right back -- faster than you can say, "atmano mokshartham jagaditaya ca."

Jay Matta Di,

Niranjan

Hi Niranjan

I removed the picture that seemed to detract from the storyline. No major material was deleted. The section on mythology was moved to the section after the Tantra and the Bengal Tradition. It was a mere reordering of the text, no more.

The Goddess Kali is a complex deity. In villages of North Sri Lanka and in Nepal she is often viewed in an un-iconic form without the elaborate iconography that the picture you posted depicts. She is seen as pure power that shatters all limitations that confront the devotee - be they mundane or spiritual. Interesting, the bandit queen - Phulan Devi who belonged to a scheduled caste always sought the blessings of the Goddess. So did the 'robber tribe' called the thuggees in the ravines of Chambal.

The picture you had uploaded incidentally was grotesque, hideous and would be seen as demonic by a casual non-Hindu who reads the article. It does not do justice to the complex strands that define concept under consideration. Why not a more mainstream picture or just the face. The Bengal school of iconography i.e. the two eyes with the tilak on the forehead stands out. Or the south-Indian Bhadrakali i.e. of Kali emerging from the fire.

Best regards

Hi Deep,

First, I didn’t upload the picture to which you are referring, but I didn’t see a problem with it – Kali is “grotesque.” And, if you are going to remove a picture that’s fine, just make sure you replace it. Furthermore, this article deals with the issue of the pleasant vs. unsettling aesthetics within the history of Kali. Your mentioning of non-Hindus misinterpreting this goddess only implies that you think non-Hindus wouldn’t take the time to read this article -- superiority complex?

It’s interesting to me how much I hear my fellow countrymen whine about the “Latinization” of Indic culture, and then (when presented it in its raw, intended form) they whine again that it may be offensive and needs to be whitewashed! There are no more pure cultures in this world my friend -- the Hotr & Udgatr priests, they all have cell-phones now. What we do have though is a society of individuals who pick and choose (from a vast warehouse of human history) those cultural traits which best suit their ever-changing needs. Remember this the next time you are cheering for you favorite cricket team.

The role Wikipedia plays in all of this is that it is part of the warehouse I referred to before. And, unlike the people who use it, it can (and should) maintain its cultural purity -- this is Wikipedia not Myspace. So, if an article contains something that is factual yet hard for you to stomach, tough. Now, I apologize for my harsh rhetoric sir and I mean you no harm or disrespect. I’m going to upload a picture from my last trip to Dakshineswar. It’s pleasant and includes lots of flowers. I’m also going to include Kali’s yantra to strengthen the presentation. But, it’s on you now to make amends with Ma, as to why you took issue with her naked, ego-threatening side.

Respectfully,

Niranjan

Contents

[edit] Kali picture

I have reverted the picture posted by Niranjan because, though beautiful, it is not detailed enough to be a header photo. The majority of the statue was obscured by flowers. I have moved the picture to the Inconography section. Niranjan is correct in saying that wikipedia shows the good and bad sides of each article. They are to be balanced and free of point-of-view. Even if a user finds something offensive about an article, they can't change it because Wikipedia is not ever to be censored. A good example would be this article.

Please keep in mind that this is English Wikipedia and so the most common depiction of Kali should be used (such as the current picture). The article does the job itself of explaining the differences between the east and west’s views on the mother-goddess. The pictures are just to show what she looks like for reference.(Ghostexorcist 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi Niranjan and Ghostexorcist

This is not about censorship. It is also about how the practitioner views the worship of the Goddess. The wording and pictures in the current text represent a stereotyped view of the Goddess that is highly selective.

The picture put up by Ghostexorcist is hardly the most common depiction of Kali. I would like to know the source of the picture. It appears to be from a Steven Spielberg track! The picture placed in the sub-section "Popular Form of Kali" is far more in use. I am unable to upload that. But would that not be more in keeping with how contemporary devotee views the Goddess?

I note that the South Indian/Sri Lankan concept of Bhadra Kali (or the auspicious Kali) finds no mention in the current iconography or text. That too forms part of the broader overview of the worship of the Goddess.

Let us place this debate in a broader context. Would the textual references to 'female circumcision' in the Hadith or the possible 'ritual cannibalistic' antecedents of the Eucharist ever find mention in the 'vast warehouse of human history' that is Wikipedia? Why the selectivity?

Best regards

Dipendra

You are censoring the page by removing the picture, plain and simple. Your statement of "...how the practitioner views the worship of the Goddess" is POV. It seems you are trying to whitewash the page to keep from continuing some kind of preconceived notion that all westerners think Kali is a demon. All aspects of the devi need to be shown to keep the article balanced.
I was not the person who uploaded the photo in the first place. I don’t know who painted it or where it came from. You are new to Wikipedia (as you have stated), so you are gong to have to learn that you don’t own the page, neither do I, and that there are certain channels you must go through. Therefore, you must discuss changes like this with other editors before taking action.
Please feel free to add any material about the Bhadra Kali that you like as long as it is cited with verifiable sources.
I have no idea if articles for female circumcision or ritual cannibalism exist on Wikipedia. What does that have to do with you repeatedly removing a picture without discussing it? (Ghostexorcist 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
By the way, there are articles or at least sections of articles that mention Female circumcision and ritual cannibalism in Christianity. (Ghostexorcist 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Image tagging for Image:300px-Kaligoddess.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:300px-Kaligoddess.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I requested that this picture be deleted because it was an exact duplicate of Image:Kaligoddess.jpg. It was deleted the other day. Please do not upload duplicate pictures to Wikipedia. If you are having trouble figuring out how to post an image on the page, you can ask me or another editor for help. (Ghostexorcist 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Ghost Exorcist,

But we are discussing the subject matter. It is a debate.

You mention that I do not own the page. Quite right. But neither does any one else. The point is whether this picture is a standard representative depiction of the Goddess. I would argue that it is not. You yourself mention that you know nothing about the picture. Hence, it be better replaced with a more standard icon.

I still think it important to depict how the practitioner views the deity. Everything is POV (to use your phrase).

I look forward to reading the links you provided on female circumcision (the stray references in the Hadith that legitimize the practice in parts of the world??) and to the Eucharist and possible links thereof with a ritual cannibalism of a bygone era.

Best regards

My point is, a discussion about the Kali page needs to take place on the Kali talk page as a record. This is english wikipedia and the most commonly viewed icon of Kali should be used. I will no longer contact you on your talk page (unless it is absolutely necessary). Move your questions and comments about the picture to the talk page. Any deletion of the picture without discussion will be looked at and treated as vandalism. This is a friendly warning. Please follow this link the the Kali talk page.
You also need to start signing your comments with (~~~~) because it will open a link to your user page. I'll make the same symbol at the end of this comment and you should see my user name link. (Ghostexorcist 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

The current Kali picture was uploaded by User:Balajiviswanathan. Please contact him if you like. I am going to involve him in the discussion as well. (Ghostexorcist 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Ghost Exorcist

I think that you are being needlessly aggressive. There is no need to give me military-style 'friendly warnings'. As I had mentioned, I am new to Wikipedia and learning my way around. Nevertheless, my views on the current text and iconography are based on my familiarity with the subject matter.

Best regards

I have been following this debate with avid interest. I tend to agree with Dipendra. The picture uploaded by Ghost does no justice to the concept of Kali!! Lets use a more mainstream picture - Mrinalini

Mrinalini,

Let me first grasp the technology and 'rules' before I return to the debate. Its time out for me now. Thank you for your vote of confidence :-)

The iconography does not adequately capture a multi-faceted Goddess who is at once the nurturer and shatterer, the upholder of the family as well as one who stands outside all social norms, the object of veneration in high Hinduism and yet a key motif in the folk and tribal religion. She is truly a complex deity.

Best regards --Dipendra2007 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Namaskaram

Dipendra

Keep up the good work. You had thoughtful insights. I did give my two cents worth below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kali

Vanakkam--Dharman Dharmaratnam 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

Hi! before apply the Minor edit checkbox next time, please read this. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka

I noticed that you showed an interest in Sri Lanka related articles. Please take a look at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Among other things, we collected a number of recommendations for getting your point across while keeping out of trouble. We're here to help! In any event, we invite you to leave us a message on our talk page.

Happy editing! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru,

Thank you for the warm welcome. Look forward to working with you. I will check out the page.

Best regards --Dipendra2007 05:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaivism

Thank you for contributing a reference on Shaivism. We have been trying to clean up that article to improve the sourcing, and your addition of Bhattacharyya is a move in the right direction. Also note that there are forking issues with History of Shaivism that need to be resolved. Can you please add a page number and characterize the material that the citation covers in your footnote? We are moving toward clear inline citations as material is upgraded. I appreciate any help you can give with sourcing to WP:RS such as Bhattacharyya. Here is the text that may benefit from page references:

It left a major imprint on the intellectual life of classical Cambodia, Champa in what is today south Vietnam, Java, Kashmir and the Tamil land. The wave of Saivite devotionalism that swept through late classical and early medieval India redefined Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Shaivite worship legitimized several ruling dynasties in pre-modern India be they the Chola, the Rajput or tribal. A similar trend was witnessed in early medieval Indonesia with the Majapahit empire and pre-Islamic Malaya. (ref: Sastri, K.A. Nilakanta. "A Historical Sketch of Saivism", in: Bhattacharyya (1956), Volume IV.)

Buddhipriya 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)