Talk:Parvati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hinduism / Mythology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu mythology (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Mythology (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Parvati's image[edit]

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 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 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 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Remove other Kangra image. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashok Sundari[edit]

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) 

Images Removed[edit]

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)