Talk:Shaktism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

These two sentences are too long....

1. Examples in the United States include the Kali Mandir in Laguna Beach, California[76]; and Sri Rajarajeshwari Peetam[77], a Srividya Shakta temple in rural Rush, New York, which was recently the subject an in-depth academic monograph exploring the "dynamics of diaspora Hinduism," including the serious entry and involvement of non-Indians in traditional Hindu religious practice.[78]

Removed "which was recently the subject an in-depth academic monograph exploring the "dynamics of diaspora Hinduism," including the serious entry and involvement of non-Indians in traditional Hindu religious practice." part is a case of WP:UNDUE to Sri Rajarajeshwari Peetam.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Kalikula lineages focus upon the Devi as the source of wisdom (vidya) and liberation (moksha), and generally stand "in opposition to the brahmanic tradition," which they view as "overly conservative and denying the experiential part of religion."[51]

 Done Split into two.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Are there any main mantras of Shaktism or bija mantas which should be mentioned?

There are n no of mantras used in Shaktism: every form like Durga, Chamunda, Kali etc. have a diff mantra. Also the mantras are not encyclopedic in nature - useful to experts only and may be confusing to non-experts.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is a good dictionary type of introduction of Shaktism, and well written, but it doesn't really introduce sections of the entire article such as worship - and its sub sections and some other sections. WP lead should introduce the sections and entice the reader from only the first paragraph to want to delve into the other sections. This intro introduces Shaktism but not the article sections themselves.

Is there a common form or image depicted of the divine mother or Mother Goddess that could be described? Iconography or common attritubes.

This is an article on the cult of the Goddess (Devi), not the Goddess herself. Thus, Iconography or common attritubes are not discussed here.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the goddess Uma also be mentioned?

Uma is another name of goddess Parvati, who is mentioned.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the etymology from Sanskrit to English of the word Shaktism be mentioned as well?

Should also some mention be made of the Shruti, texts or upanishads which would be considered to be Shakta Upanishads, such as those introduced in Hindu denominations.

The Shakta Upanishads are mentioned in section Shaktism#Historical & Philosophical Development. The detailed description available in daughter article History of Shaktism. The article was split due to its Size being more than as prescribed in WP:SIZE. Also, Shruti does not consist of only the Shakta Upanishads. All Hindu texts are divided into the Smriti (remembered) and Shruti (revealed). --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannot some of the more famous Shakti Peethas be mentioned, as this section of the article falls short of providing information, and the other wikilinks such as Shakti Peethas are more informative. Basically the comment exists in this article section is that yup there are some and does not really say too much more in both paragraphs.

This was discussed earlier. (Talk:Shaktism#Shakti_Temples_List_Deleted.3F) A long list is already available in Shakti Peethas article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel the article covers the microscosmic and macrocosmic affluences of Shaktism, the schools & systems, introduces the practices, rituals, festivals, origin and history, and current trends, as well as philosophy as they concern Shaktism very well.

Image:Shacan ritual.PNG and Image:Bangladesh Prayer.jpg both require attribution - some rights reserved.

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ardhanari.jpg is copyrighted, and credit must be related.

 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See comments about two run-on sentences, and intro

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources checked are verified

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See above

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   comments made on three images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

SriMesh | talk 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re lead paragraph and GAN

From Wikipedia:Lead section

Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style).

See also Better lead SriMesh | talk 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanking SriMesh for the thoughtful review and RedTiger for his good work some of the issues raised; I had only one disagreement, which has been noted. I do have a busy schedule this upcoming week, but will try to address the lead and some of the other noted concerns within the next three or four days. Thanks again. (Devi bhakta (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devi bhakta (talk • contribs)

Current lead

Shaktism is a denomination of Hinduism that focuses worship upon Shakti or Devi – the Hindu name for the Divine Mother – as the absolute, ultimate godhead. It is, along with Saivism and Vaisnavism, one of the three primary schools of Hinduism.

Shaktism regards Devi as the Supreme Brahman itself, the "one without a second," with all other forms of divinity, female or male, considered to be merely her diverse manifestations. In the details of its philosophy and practice, Shaktism resembles Saivism. However, Shaktas (practitioners of Shaktism) tend to focus worship on Shakti exclusively, as the feminine dynamic aspect of the Supreme Divine. Shiva, the masculine aspect of divinity, is considered solely transcendent, and his worship is usually relegated to an auxiliary role.

In his seminal History of the Shakta Religion, N. N. Bhattacharyya stated, "Those who worship the Supreme Deity exclusively as a Female Principle are called Shakta. The Shaktas conceive their Great Goddess as the personification of primordial energy and the source of all divine and cosmic evolution. She is identified with the Supreme Being, conceived as the source and the spring as well as the controller of all the forces and potentialities of nature. Nowhere in the religious history of the world do we come across such a completely female-oriented system." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My Draft

Shaktism is a denomination of Hinduism that focuses worship upon Shakti or Devi – the Hindu name for the Divine Mother – as the absolute, ultimate godhead. It is, along with Saivism and Vaisnavism, one of the three primary schools of Hinduism.

Shaktism regards Devi as the Supreme Brahman itself, the "one without a second", with all other forms of divinity, female or male, considered to be merely her diverse manifestations. In the details of its philosophy and practice, Shaktism resembles Saivism. However, Shaktas (practitioners of Shaktism) tend to focus worship on Shakti exclusively, as the feminine dynamic aspect of the Supreme Divine in her benevolent as well as fierce Tantric forms.Shiva, the masculine aspect of divinity, is considered solely transcendent.

The roots of Shaktism penetrate deep into India's prehistory. From the Devi's earliest known appearance in Indian paleolithic settlements 20,000 years ago, through the refinement of her cult in the Indus Valley Civilization, her partial eclipse during the Vedic period, and her subsequent resurfacing and expansion in the Sanskritic tradition, it has been suggested that, in many ways, "the history of the Hindu tradition can be seen as a reemergence of the feminine."

Shaktism is practiced throughout the Indian subcontinent and beyond; however, its two most visible and numerically significant schools are the Srikula, or family of Sri, strongest in South India; and the Kalikula, or family of Kali, which prevails in Northern and Eastern India.

(The lead is not original but compilation of lead sentences from various section and the sister article History of Shaktism) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Redtigerxyz, I will work with this. Give me a couple of days. Thanks again ... (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Etymology Help Needed!

I am trying to prepare an etymology for the word "Shaktism."

The Sanskrit font I'm working with -- Sanskrit 99 -- turns into Roman-font gibberish when I try to paste it over.

I think Redtigerxyz may know how to work Devanagari in (based on other articles he's worked on). I can send doc in Sanskrit 99 if you like, or post here in whatever form, for you to rework as needed. Please advise. Thanks! (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Devanagari in Shaktism

Hi Redtiger ... I see you've already inserted some Devanagari into the Shaktism lead. Proper name for Shaktism is not Shakta (that is either an adjective; or else a noun describing a practitioner, not the practice itself); but ShaaktaM, Sanskrit, "doctrine of power," derived from Shakti, Sanskrit, "power" ... (Devi bhakta (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: aye

2. Factually accurate?: aye

3. Broad in coverage?: aye

4. Neutral point of view?: aye

5. Article stability? aye

6. Images?: aye

aye If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— SriMesh | talk 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, SriMesh for a positive and extremely constructive review. My only concern regards the History of Shaktism article, which is really a part of the Shaktism article (and, in my opinion, one of the strongest parts) though it was broken off as a "daughter article" for length purposes. As RedTiger noted, the two parts are intimately interconnected -- parts of the Shaktism lead draw directly on History of Shaktism content. Yet I notice History of Shaktism is still rated B. I feel it should be raised up with the rest of the main article -- I do not want these two complimentary pieces to drift off in two separate directions, if that makes any sense. If there are lingering concerns about the, please note them so that they can be addressed. Thanks again for your time, advice and kind assistance. (Devi bhakta (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Nominated History of Shaktism for GA.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sha'can Edits Undone

Yesterday, Caitbrooke, an editor without an active user or talk page, edited the caption of the photo in the final section of this article. I undid edit as explained below:

CAITBROOKE'S EDITED CAPTION: A U.S. adherent of Sha'can, a religion blending elements of Shakta Tantra with Western Wicca practices.

ORIGINAL CAPTION: A U.S. adherent of Sha'can, a New Age religion blending elements of Shaktism with Western Wicca practices.

1. NEW AGE

While adherents of Sha'can may not approve the designation "New Age," to a lay readership this is the most accurate and concise way of describing this religion.

As noted in Wikipedia's New Age entry, "New Age is a term which includes diverse individuals, including some who graft additional beliefs onto a traditional religious affiliation. Individuals who hold any of its beliefs may not identify with the name, and the name may be applied as a label by outsiders to anyone they consider inclined towards its world view. The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions from both East and West [...]. New Age ideas could be described as drawing inspiration from all the major world religions with influences from [...] Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Ceremonial magic, Sufism, Taoism, New Thought, Wiccan and Neo-Paganism being especially strong." (Emphasis added)

If the above does not accurately describe Sha'can, I can't imagine what would.

2. SHAKTA TANTRA

This entire article goes to great lengths to finesse what Shaktism really is and what Shaktism's Tantric elements actually involve in authentic practice. To arbitrarily re-caption the photo by switching the terms "Shaktism" and "Shakta Tantra" for no discernible reason ("Shakta Tantra," as mentioned throughout the article, is a specific designation, not an interchangeable term for "Shaktism") in many ways defeats the purpose of the section (as well as illustrating the cultural appropriation issues raised) and the article itself.

I do appreciate the editor's effort, but these are my justifications for undoing. Thank you. (Devi bhakta (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

More Sha'can Edits

Now an anonymous user has edited the "Sha'can" caption again, this time replacing the term "New Age" with "Neo-Pagan". Fine, I will leave it. However, I did remove the name of the "founder" they inserted -- it seems to me that if Sha'can people feel so strongly about controlling how people describe their faith, and if they want to promote the personalities who loom large in its creation, then they should create their own Wiki page and have away.

This page, however, is about Shaktism, and the only individuals mentioned by name are established historical and modern personalities who are within the authentic traditions of Hindu Shaktism. The only reason Sha'can is mentioned is as an example of nascent Western interest in adopting (and adapting) Shakta deities and ideas. If it is such a hot issue, I will go about seeking some Wikipedia-acceptable "Western Kali" art and leave it at that (the "Sha'can Art" at Wikimedia, uploaded by one "Nyo" as original work, turned out to be copyrighted material with artist signature and copyright info snipped out, so that is not usable here). Then we can limit Sha'can to a textual reference only or simply remove it altogether and avoid the headache. (Devi bhakta (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

UNDUE so removed

"Like Shiva-associated Shaktism, Shakti embodies the active energy and power of male supreme deity Vishnu in Vaishnavism. Vishnu's shakti counterpart is called Lakshmi. However, in Srivaishnavism, a school of Vaishnavism, Lakshmi or Sri does not play any particular part in the creative function of the Lord as Devi. In Srivaishnavism, Vishnu alone is the great creator, although Sri is co-eval with Him. As Vishnu is the father who stands for absolute justice, Sri, the mother of the universe, is considered to be important element in the redemption of mankind, and is the interceder with Vishnu on behalf of spiritual seekers. In the Smarta tradition of Hinduism, Shakti is considered to be one of five equal bonafide scripture-sanctioned forms of God in the panchadeva system."

This article not really about Shakti, the Goddess it is about Shaktism, that worships her as the Supreme and the origin of the Trimuti. Better suited for Shakti, will move there. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramakrishna para

Removed:

Some scholars state outright that the Kalikula school reject rejects brahminical tradition. But these views are difficult to accurately characterize the plurality of views within the larger Hindu tradition outside of the Kalikula school; the great Hindu saint, Ramakrishna, probably, one of the most famous worshippers of Kali, was born in a traditional brahmin family, and worshipped Her as the Divine Mother; furthermore, he was not a follower of the kalikula school, but rather an adherent of the smarta advaitic tradition, which considers Devi to be one of the five equal forms of the Divine. ;

"Kalikula school reject rejects brahminical tradition" is already stated: They generally stand "in opposition to the brahmanic tradition," The other contents of the para are an WP:UNDUE here, this is NOT an article on Ramakrishna. Also the sources do not explicitly state that "he was not a follower of the kalikula school". Also, the ISKCON site is not the best WP:RS for shakta philosophy, not even Vaishnava philosophy. ISKCON is part of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Got your point, Redtiger but I respectfully disagree. Ramkrishna believed in Kali as the supreme being, yet he was a leading proponent of Advaita and ishta deva theory; therefore, his views are not the same as the Kalikula school which believes Kali alone to be the supreme being; In addition, he did not believe in the left hand practices of some followers of Kalikula; therefore believing in Kali and being orthodox are not incompatible.

Hope this clarifies. Iskcon site was cited to state generally known facts; about four branches of Hinduism fact that they believe in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is irrelevant, if general statements about Hinduism are true; i.e., there are shaiva, vaishnava and shakta schools. Raj2004 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections about Ramakrishna being an Advaita follower, but this is an UDUE here. Can be put in Ramakrishna, if better RS are available? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Word Brahman

Brahman has other meanings such as it refers to a community and an individual belonging to it and so I suggest that the spelling should be Brahmaa or Brahma and not Brahman to avoid misunderstanding in the minds of readers. Wikipedia insists that there should not be any misrepresentation due to any wrong writing. In view of this I feel correction is required.Pathare Prabhu (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Worshiped by the Enemies of the Aryans

Please see my comments on the talk page for the Dasa article. There is some evidence that the enemies of the Rgvedic Aryans worshiped Durga. Hokie Tech (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about religion and not about race myths. The term Aryan being used for a race is nineteenth century invention. This article is not about 'Aryans' but about Shakti worshippers among 'Hindus', so what you are stating is irrelevant to this article. Put it up in some other article about Aryan races if you please. Thanks. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Animal Sacrifice

This article doesn't mention animal sacrifice performed at many Kali or Durga temples throughout India. Must say that is a serious omission. I want to discuss it here before adding content to a GA Jonathansammy (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add it with references or add proposed changes here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

'Crystallization of the Goddess Tradition'

The most central and pivotal text in Shaktidharma is the Devi Mahatmya (also known as the Durga Saptashati, Chandi or Chandi-Path), composed some 1,600 years ago. Here, for the first time, "the various mythic, cultic and theological elements relating to diverse female divinities were brought together in what has been called the 'crystallization of the Goddess tradition.'"

Other important texts include the canonical Shakta Upanishads, as well as Shakta-oriented Puranas such as the Devi Purana and Kalika Purana ... 

Are the adjectives "The most central and pivotal ..." and "... the canonical Shakta Upanishads ..." proper? Will not "A central and pivotal ..." and "... the Shakta Upanishads ..." be more correct?

The question is, are the Devi Mahatmya and the Shakta Upanishads canonical (universally accepted by followers of Shakti-dharma)? Hinduism is a highly decentralised, bottom-up religion and rural/regional varieties may not use either of these books. Scholars who do not understand this often end up making gross generalisations from the urban/upper-class traditions that are best known. Jose Mathew (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Shaktism

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 Shaktism'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 "James2002":

• From Jainism: James G. Lochtefeld (2002), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M, The Rosen Publishing Group, p. 409, ISBN 978-0-8239-3179-8, retrieved 16 August 2013
• From Animal sacrifice in Hinduism: James G. Lochtefeld (2002). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 41. ISBN 9780823931798.

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⚡ 23:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of referenced large sections under "cleanup" title

[1] I reverting back this edit as most of the article is lost in this vandalism. User:Ms_Sarah_Welch and User:Jonathansammy, I apologize to you as many of your edits are being reverted. I will incorporate them slowly in the article after the revert. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: I already did restore a lot of it, with this edit and others. But @VictoriaGrayson's major deletion is appropriate in parts. I have gone through the sources and additions since the very old GA review. I suggest you work with the new version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: You should know better than to call people's edits vandalism. I'll add to my userpage, my editing philosophy.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@R: This post-GA edit added much content with issues noted above. It will not pass a GA review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Animal sacrifice section

@Jonathansammy: Have you actually checked the sources? The content you restored is in parts not supported by the sources, and in some parts not relevant, not WP:Due and WP:Fringe to Shaktism. Please check the sources carefully (I have), then let us discuss and reach a consensus version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, Spent a whole afternoon going through them again. Let me know which ones you object to ? The Rajputs sacrificing at Navratri is not fringe. The bhils and salis clearly offer sacrifice to central Goddesses of shaktism such as Bhavani and Kalika. The sacred groves in Maharashtra are around devi temples. Alf Hitelbeit was an authority on Hinduism in Southern India. The JSTOR article took such a long time to read. Do not forget, I found these references a long time ago. Please note I do not have any POV. On any encyclopedic article you should exercise NPOV. . Nevertheless, I follow Wikipedia policy and only add reliable sources. You will see very few if any website, blog or news citations from me. By the way, i have not stopped working on this section. i intend to find more material in the coming days to show that animal sacrifice in Shaktism is practiced throughout India and not just the North east. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: Let us start with this and the Singh source on page 962. Where is the source mentioning anything about Shaktism or Shakta, or talking about a naming ceremony? There is a mention of goat sacrifice promise in the last para, but we can't use that in this article, because that is WP:OR of the WP:Synthesis variety. Is this on another page number? I can't find it, but we can consider it if this source discusses Shaktism or Shakta or equivalent. But no OR, no synthesis, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch , The Kuthari caste content. I will have to double check that. I did not add that but the claim sounds plausible. That can stay off until additional sources are presented. The Bhil and Sali content should be added back because they offer sacrifice to Bhavani and Kalika, two mainstream manifestations of Shakti !. Is that WP:Synthesis ? I must say what surprises me above all is how this article achieved GA without having a section on animal sacrifice. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: Yes, this article should have a reasonable, well sourced animal sacrifice section. But if the source never mentions Shaktism, it is OR-WP:Synthesis to allege or interpret anecdotal cases to be a generic Shaktism practice. Instances of animal sacrifice can go in the article on Bhavani / Kalika, but to put such stuff into this article requires that the scholar interpret/conclude that to be about Shaktism, or by Shakta-Hindu, or equivalent. Remember the Bhavani / Kalika / etc instance could be by a local tribe/ non-Shakta Hindus/ Muslims/ Tantra-Buddhists/ etc. In Bangladesh, for example, many instances of local Muslims worshipping goddesses have been reported (1, 2). That sort of stuff can go into the wikipedia article on goddess Olabibi or Bonbibi, but it would be OR-synthesis to list such unusual Muslim practices in this overview article on Hindu-Shaktism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Website and other sources

Let me know if we can add the material from the following in the animal sacriifice section:

1. [2]

2. [3], page 128

3.

4.

I hope my fellow editors do not think that I am obsessed with this section. My objective here is to give a fuller picture of Shaktism and show that historically and even in contemporary times, animal sacrifice has been part of Goddess worship throughout India rather than just in the Northeast. Some of these traditions might be on the decline but youtube videos, newspaper articles and recent books say otherwise. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

References

@Jonathansammy: I am concerned about RS, OR-synthesis and WP:Due issues you are inadvertently creating despite your good intentions. Youtube and such websites etc are not RS. The source should mention Shaktism or equivalent. Just because there is a deity and an animal sacrifice, it is WP:Synthesis to present it as Shaktism unless the source interprets or implies so. Harlan is a good source, and we can add it. Yet, we must pay attention to relative weight to avoid undue issues. The animal sacrifice section cannot be bigger than history or theology or Durga puja or Shakti temples or tantra or etc sections. Just look at other wikipedia articles, where annual animal sacrifices occur at much larger scale than in Shaktism (e.g. Eid al-Adha etc and Islam), yet a few sentences or a paragraph suffices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch I will mostly use these sources as citations to add weight to the existing content. The Mysore Dasara mentions Durga and Navaratri. That should definitely be in without danger of synthesis. What is our policy on adding primary sources ? I certainly will not be able find a book on recent incidences of animal sacrifice. Whether other religions sacrifice animals or not is irrelevant here. We are not doing an article on comparative religion here. There are groups in India that want to downplay aspects of Hinduism that may be construed as negative but on the Wikipedia project we have to put an unvarnished NPOV. There is no room for censorship here. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: This is not a case of censorship nor of down-playing aspects of Shaktism. The issue is the opposite: up-playing an aspect to a disproportionate level. The example of far-bigger-scale animal sacrifices every year in Islam, than Shaktism, is to give you another article to review, then reflect on WP:Due guideline's implementation elsewhere in religion-related wikipedia articles, to encourage you to introspect / diversify your focus and editing history on "animal sacrifice" aspects here. Our goal in this article is to present all aspects of Shaktism per WP:Due and other content guidelines of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch Our mission here is to improve and make the article more comprehensive. We do not have to bring anything relating to religions of the middle-east like Christianity , Judaism or Islam in the picture. For that matter, USA annual meat consumption for year 2009 was 120 kg per capita, with European countries at 70-100 kg, Pakistan at 16 kg, Saudi at 54 kg and India at 4 kg. Ritually sacrificed or not, a lot of killing takes place to satisfy human craving for flesh around the world. Having said that, the information I just mentioned has no place in the article on shaktism. I agree with you that animal killing is on a lower scale overall in India and only a small percentage of that would be ritual animal killing by Hindus. You can allude to that in the section but the bottom line is, rare or not, ritual killing in Shaktism takes place in all regions and all sections of the society, all the way from the royals of Mysore and Rajasthan to the rural poor and the tribals. That is not undue weight on the topic. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy: We have already agreed, see my reply above long ago, that animal sacrifice section is appropriate to this article. The question now is balance. Tell, what is bigger, major, more notable in WP:RS and more generic practice in Shaktism: Durga puja or Animal sacrifice? Now compare how many lines this article has on Durga puja, and how many on Animal sacrifice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)