Talk:Shaktism/Archive 1

message: Hi everyone:
Back in January 2007, someone added a tag, "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it."
After a few small tweaks here and there over the past several months, I finally undertook to try and comprehensively expand and improve the article. At this point, I am still doing a lot of work and the changes –both large and small – are so extensive it would be almost impossible to note each one. Please be patient with me for a bit longer.
As of this writing, my changes and expansions are basically complete from the top down to the "Puranas" intro. Below that, I have not done much except add heads and subheads for further expansion later, and move around some pre-existing text from the article as it was. So please note when editing: Anything below the Puranas intro is still very raw and very much "under construction."
I will endeavor to complete additions and expansions, within the new template, as soon as possible. Please leave any comments and suggestions for improvement!
Thanks! - Devi (Devi bhakta 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Shaktism Page 

message: References from Subramuniyaswami, Satguru Sivaya's book relating Ganesha were removed from the article as it was considered devotee literature , thus not WP:RS. Same applies to "Merging with Siva".--Redtigerxyz 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that Subramuniyaswami's work definitely qualifies as "devotee literature"; however, the first and third passages quoted are not "devotional" in nature. At the back of the "Merging with Shiva" text is a massive Glossary for readers unfamiliar with Hindu terminology, philosophies, denominations, etc., offering brief discussions and explanations, etc. -- in fact, both references were drawn from there. Would it help if i clarified the Bibliography to say "Dictionary of Hindu Terms and Concepts", taken from the Subramuniyaswami work? Whatever the devotional nature of the book as a whole, the glossary seems very straightforward. The second passage *has* to be devotional, in the sense that it is illustrating the assertion that "Shaivas take a different view of this than Shaktas" -- and thus follows Subramuniyaswami's (Shaiva) interpretation.
(Devi bhakta 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Devotee literature 

message: Quoting primary sources e.g Rigveda directly with verese no, is against the WP policy of WP:RS and WP:V. Generally secondary sources e.g a WP:RS which says the verse is in Rigveda, should be referenced and primary sources can be used as notes. I am not removing primary sources til secondary sources are found.--Redtigerxyz 12:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (Devi bhakta 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still references 31 and 33 
^Mahabharata, IV.6 and VI.23. 
^ Silappadikaram, Canto XXII  remain--Redtigerxyz 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting primary sources 

message: "Their theology is complex and multilayered; however, a good basic summary explains:
"The Supreme Mother is the Transcendent Absolute; ineffable, immutable. In the act of creation, she subjects herself to time and space. Though space is actually one vast expanse, for [purposes of] our grasp and understanding we demarcate the invisible and infinite space into ten directions [i.e. the eight cardinal directions, plus above and below. ...] Likewise, the one Truth is sensed in its ten different facets; the Divine Mother is adored and approached as the ten cosmic personalities, the Dasa [Ten] Mahavidyas." Shankarnarayanan, S., The Ten Great Cosmic Powers: Dasa Mahavidyas. Samata Books (Chennai, 1972; 4th ed. 2002), pp. 4, 5.
Each of the Mahavidyas is said to lead to ultimate wisdom and spiritual liberation; yet the paths to this end will differ according to the goddess chosen as an aspirant's personal deity [ishtadevata]]:
"Each Vidya is distinct and distinguishable from the other. Each is a particular cosmic function and each leads to a special realisation of the One Reality. [...] If an aspirant wants to reach the Divine, circumscribed as he is by his receptivity and capacity, he chooses one particular path; i.e., takes up for adoration one aspect of the Divine. As his pursuit is exclusive, his progress is quick and his approach becomes direct. Ultimately he attains a perfect identification with the Divine."Shankarnarayanan, S., The Ten Great Cosmic Powers: Dasa Mahavidyas. Samata Books (Chennai, 1972; 4th ed. 2002), pp. 6, 7.
In fact, it is believed that the Mahavidyas work collectively guiding their individual devotees through spiritual evolvution, and that "one Mahavidya leads [her] sadhaka to another, depending on the need and aspiration of the sadhaka."Ibid., p. 8. Each of the Mahavidyas can be understood at various levels. For example, in some Kalikula systems Matangi is conceived as the "outcaste goddess," taking the form of a Chandali – a tribal woman of a jungle-dwelling, meat-eating hunter-gatherer tribe – while in Srikula systems she is more often described as the daughter of the great sage Matanga, and Prime Minister to the Queen (Lalita-Tripurasundari as Rajarajeshwari)."
Removed this info under WP:UNDUE to Mahavidyas discussion. This info is better suited for Mahavidyas article.--Redtigerxyz 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahavidyas 

message: Reworked section in accordance with above suggestions. Standardized capitalization of goddess lists for aesthetics and uniformity in keeping with links and brief translation/descriptors.  (71.245.64.12 14:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahavidyas and Goddess Lists 

message: The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD. The lead should be 2-3 paras, giving an overview of the article ahead.--Redtigerxyz 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, I went for a tight, concise "definition" lead of two sentences. Much of the material in the early part of the "Overview" section was formerly in the lead. We could move it back, but I'm not sure it would improve the article. I would rather see either (a) specific suggestions as to a better lead or (b) other opinions as to whether the current one is really insufficient.
Thank you! (Devi bhakta 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better lead completed (Devi bhakta 11:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better lead needed 

message: Replacing :Image:Bhuvaneshwari1.jpg with :Image:4-bhuvanesvari2.jpg as the former is a grainy image while the latter is an image of better resolution, with a additonal yantra (Tantric image) and used in Mahavidya article.--Redtigerxyz 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Red Tiger. I have to agree with you. I have been unhappy with the grainy Bhuvaneshwari for several reasons. As you know I tried the Bhudevi, but of course you were correct that the two devi forms are simply too different. As a compromise I took a few minutes and created this composite image along the same lines as your proposed art, except with colour image and yantra displaying colours per dhyana also.  (Devi bhakta 11:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhuvaneshwari image 

message: Hi Redtiger: Thanks for your latest round of edits. Please remember that, even though I am finally approaching the end of my planned edits, all of these sections are still very much works in progress. More pics will be added as sections fill out; references completed, etc.
Under "Worship in Shaktism" you removed the photo wit comment, "remove img as deity not seen; it can be any other diety." I would just note that (a) I was particularly seeking a "worshiper" pic here, as there will be plenty of deity photos within subsections; (b) the caption clearly notes that this is a Durga Puja crowd, as well as place and date of same, so it is very much "on topic"; (c) as a point of design they are both "facing" the list of Devi's names, visually paying respect to their holiness (while graphically balancing the text); and (d) I kinda like the fact that the photo is in Bangladesh, to kind of visually add to the textual assertions about the wide geographic spread of Shaktism.
I know the shot's not particularly strong (it's not mine either; just a Wikimedia Commons upload), but I liked it and found it charming and good for "mood" I wanted to set for opening of this section. Unless you feel incredibly strongly about it, I'd really like to let it stand. (Devi bhakta 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worshiper Photo 

message: removed:
#Santoshi Mata: The Goddess of Contentment, a "recent" goddess form, made famous in the 1975 film, "Jai Santoshi Ma"
Again she is a "recent" goddess, with no Puranic evidence. Emerging after 1975. Thus not part of the ancient cult of Shaktism.
--Redtigerxyz 14:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted this for several reasons: (a) the list is based on Kinsley and Hawley as footnoted, not on subjective personal choice; (b) this article is about Shaktism -- from earliest times to the present; *not* only about "the ancient cult of Shaktism" -- ancient Shaktism is fully covered earlier in article, and Santoshi is clearly indicated as a recent development (and will be further developed as article nears completion -- I need to keep stressing that this article is still a work in progress!); (c) like it or not, the Santoshi cult is hugely popular and influential in North India; her image is everywhere, and even academics have taken note of the phenomenon"; (d) with so much of the article (necessarily ) focusing on south and east of India, I think the Santoshi discussion adds balance. My 2 cents anyway. - DB(71.245.64.12 20:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Santoshi a principal diety???? 

message: A word on the choice and placement of the photo of a Shunga-period yakshini, bridging the "Upanishad" and "Epic" sections of the article:
In the "Upanishad", we discuss the Devi's taking the form of a yakshini in appearing to the Vedic trinity. In the "Epic" section, the Shunga Empire is specifically named as a culture feeding the nascent Shakta impulses appearing in the Epics. So the photo applies to and bridges the two sections.
Aesthetically, the sculpture provides a visual that breaks up a long stretch of unrelieved text. As I've placed it, it not only makes sense thematically as stated above, but also as a nice and relevant illustration falling almost exactly halfway between the Lajja Gauri and the Mahishasura Mardini. 
Finally, it nicely balances the list to the left, and relieves the unbalanced white space that had existed there before. - DB (71.245.64.12 04:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yakshini pic 

message: The temple is given WP:UNDUE imp. Thus i request DB to remove one of the 2 images from the article. Image:Devi homam.jpg is looking a little wierd due to big light. --Redtigerxyz 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair criticism. There are not many who are willing to publicise these rituals. In any event I have diversified the pics. (Devi bhakta 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devipuram 

message: for WP:V. --Redtigerxyz 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someday! Someday! ;-) (Devi bhakta 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. (Devi bhakta 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page nos needed for references 

message: Thus replacing one with Kali's.
Also the image now in the lead is not fit for the lead as one side is darker compared to rest of the pic.--Redtigerxyz 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about bad color balance on this photo. So I unframed and re-shot the print this morning outdoors in natural sunlight -- then blued it a bit to offset yellowing. I think it's much better now -- and it is just an awesome poster. As I write this I dunno where I will put it, though. I like the Tridevi image a lot -- it's very clean at the top of the article, but this old Durga Puja image has so much in it!!! Thanks for input! - DB(71.245.64.12 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As for "too many Durgas," I dunno. I agree the Kali shot should be in there -- but I don't like her there -- she is facing away from the devotees and the text. And I like having the pandal shot there. Maybe the faded-out saffron "Mahishasura Mardini" -- which is overused on other Devi-related pages anyway, could be replaced with the 1925-35 version I uploaded this morning. - DB (71.245.64.12 21:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The old Durga puja and the Pandal image give UNDUE weight to the Bengali view of Durga. I request DB to decide what to retain. I would prefer "the Pandal image" as featured pic and modern celebration of the festival. Due "The old Durga puja" though good is not of high resolution. The "Mahishasura Mardini" image is older than the two images giving another imagery of the goddess.--Redtigerxyz 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Red Tiger: I have restored Pandal image as you suggested.(71.245.64.12 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many Durga images 

message: Devi has done a brilliant work on this article. I believe that very soon it could meet the featured article criteria. Therefore, I'm displaying a peer review here, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Following the guidances, you can improve this article further.
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid capitalizing words in section headings unless they are proper nouns or the first word of the heading.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**are considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for your very kind words and advice. I have gone through the piece and begun to take these items into account. Best regards ... (Devi bhakta 07:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I just wanted to draw your attention to Tripura Sundari temple. The state of Tripura is named after her.
http://southtripura.gov.in/Data/matabaridetails.htm. Your article is very good. Unfortunately most of the Sri Vidya Upasakas at least in Tamil Nadu do not consider themselves Sakthas.--Sankarrukku 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Sankarrukku ... Important point re Tamil Srividya upasakas, will add referenced language to that effect:
Many Samaya sadhaks (in Tamil Nadu, for example) explicitly deny being Shakta and/or Tantric, though Brooks argues that their practices are technically both, "even if Samayins would reject this appellation."[111]
(Devi bhakta 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tripura Sundari 

message: I notice that, in addition to the Aditi birth-giving passage being expunged, we've also had Radha changed from "Krishna's lover" to "Krishna's consort" ...
I guess I'd ask for some input on this. There is no doubt that Krishna and Radha are a Cosmic Pairing – but Radha is a married woman and her relationship with Krishna is, in worldly terms at least, illicit. I thus chose the term lover rather than consort as the more accurate term because of this unusual arrangement.
I agree, as with the Aditi case, that the term "consort" is less shocking to the sensibilities than the blunter term "lover," but – again as with Aditi – is being delicate more important than being accurate?
Would welcome any input, and will let "Consort" edit stand for now ... DB (71.245.64.12 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krishna and Radha 

message: Reasons:
* Worship above in the article as Discusses srikula and kalikula - the terms are repeated many times in the article
::: This may be a good move, esp. in light of shifting deities sections upward. I will review and see. There is an internal flow to these sections as I wrote them, and wholesale cut n pastes of this sort often leave all kinds of leaks and exposed wiring. There is probably a lot of patchwork to be done. It might be best to finish the article first, and then start shifting around. It's incredibly difficult to finish the outstanding sections when the finished material gets re-scrambled every night! :-) (Devi bhakta 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At first glance, my perception is the opposite. It trips up the flow as I read it. But again, I cannot tell because the revision is still incomplete. These heavy-handed shifts make it very difficult to work. It turns the flow of the narrative into a revolving target. (Devi bhakta 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shift sections 

message: Kalikula: Family of Kali gives only the Bengali side of the cult.--Redtigerxyz 12:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please feel free to research and augment as you feel necessary. (Devi bhakta 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please feel free to suggest alternative classification. I would only wonder aloud whether this is the proper forum for such reclassifications. An academic, for example, could publish a scholarly piece on the problems of the traditional classifications, but it seems that an encyclopedia is rather more constrained to present the state of knowledge on the topic as it is, rather than as it perhaps should be. It also seems to me (and I am certainly not the first to mention it!) that whatever someone categorically states about Hinduism, someone else can cite a case in which the opposite is true. It fact, a lot of the commentary on this discussion page seems to fall into that subjective category. (Devi bhakta 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalikula: Family of Kali 

message: Some of the sampradhayas of Sakthism allow the women to perform Yagnas. The women are also allowed to become Bhairavis. The Tantrik guru of Sri Ramakrishna was Bhairavi Brahmani who was a Vaishnavite Bhairavi. As this right is denied by the traditional Hindu religion including Sri Vidya, a couple of sentences would be nice. Thanks. --Sankarrukku 14:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Sankarrukku ... This is interesting info and could be worked into article if you can provide references and citations. I would note, however, that I am aware of several Srividya sampradayas (including my own) in which women as well as men freely perform yagnas and so on. So the right is not denied across the board by Srividya -- as I tried to note in the article itself Srividya itself is made up of two opposing streams, only one of which practices the orthodox, brahaminical social restrictions. (Devi bhakta 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adhikara to perform Yagnas 

message: This article does not seem to take into account the Sakthism which is widely prevalent in Bengal, Assam and parts of Maharashtra. Chandi, Durga and Kali are the the main deities. There is no mention of Chandi in in this article. Only one school is covered . The major school of practicing Sakthas who consider the supreme deity to be Maha Kali. Maha Lakshmi, and Maha Saraswathi are not mentioned. Devi Bagvatha is basically followed by South Indians where Sakthism is almost extinct. Just an observation.
Thanks,
--Sankarrukku 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sankarrukku: As noted at the top of the page, the article is very much under construction and incomplete. As of this writing, the article is finished only through the Samkhya and Vedanta section. The section on Shaktism as practiced in India today has barely begun. There is a section heading reserved for the Kalikula Shaktas of Bengal, Assam and Maharastra, and it will be completed in due course (or you are, of course, welcome to begin working on it now -- in fact I will drop a few of your comments in right now as a starter. Just for the record, though -- as a member of a southern parampara, I can assure you Shaktism is most certainly not "almost extinct" there; it is thriving and growing. (Devi bhakta 23:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sakthism practiced in India today 

message: REmoved:
* Guru Poornima: Celebrated on the full-moon day in the Hindu month of Ashada, corresponding to end of June or early July. On this day, Shaktas worship their gurus as the Devi."Guru Purnima," IndiaYogi.com
REason:
* every hindu worshipps their guru not specific to shakta
* ref site not RS
--Redtigerxyz 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Guru Purnima is very important to Shaktas. Divali and Navratri are not "exclusive" to Shaktism either, but they are there because few Shaktas would miss them. Same with Guru Purnima. (Devi bhakta 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not really sure. (Devi bhakta 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Festivals 

message: I removed the request for citation in caption under Bharat Mata, because (a) footnoting captions is crazy-making; and (b) Shaktism's "pervasive influence" is theme of entire section and is exhaustively footnoted already. (Devi bhakta 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnoting caption? 

message: As both talk Tantric association with Shaktism.--Redtigerxyz 12:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is surprisingly difficult to expand and resequence an article when its parts are moved about in mid-composition. I do appreciate your interest in anticipating what possible future edits may be useful, and I thank you for rearranging things here for now instead on it the article proper. But until there is a final, semi-stable layout to review it seems quite premature. But that's just my view. (Devi bhakta 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that the article in out of the under construction phase , I again press for the merger of the sections. I use WP:BOLD and merge the sections. --Redtigerxyz 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Tantras" and "Tantra and Shaktism" 

message: Just to inform anyone who may know and/or care, I have removed the "under construction" sign from the article. The article still needs polishing and a few good rounds of line-editing, and I will probably be tweaking it for weeks to come ... but I have pretty much finished what I set out to do in expanding and completing it. (Devi bhakta 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on an excellent article. DB. The article seems to favor the south Indian Sri Vidya point of view and gives an impression that south India is a stronghold of Sakthism. As a person who has stayed in the region for decades, I only wish it were true. Great article DB. Thanks.--Sankarrukku 02:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sankarrukku. Thanks for your kind words of support. I did try to avoid regional and sectarian bias -- and last night went thru article again, and tightened pretty severely. Would appreciate any specific concerns or suggestions. Thanks again! (Devi bhakta 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Under Construction" Sign 

message: Redtigerxyz wrote: "Now that the article in out of the under construction phase , I again press for the merger of the sections. I use WP:BOLD and merge the sections."
With all due respect, I have restored the original arrangement, and will offer a structural explanation here as to why – for anyone who may be interested, or who may be able to offer constructive alternative viewpoints:
====Tantra====
The article begins with a definition and brief overview of Shaktism, covering the most basic ideas for the casual reader. Then, before reaching into specifics of deities, methods of worship, etc., the article immediately moves to address the two main points of misunderstanding regarding Shaktism -- namely the role of Shiva, and the role of Tantra.
That is why the section begins, "Another widely misunderstood aspect of Shaktism is its close association with Tantra ..." – an intro that no longer made sense in Redtigerxyz's rearrangement. The section goes on to clarify that Tantra in Shaktism is not about black magic or sex, but is rather a practical methodology of spiritual technique. Then it briefly addresses (a) the more liberal socio-spiritual heirarchy implied by Tantra; (b) the complex reality of the infamous 5Ms, and (c) authentic Tantra's intricate relationship with Vedic Hinduism.
Thus the casual reader, reading only the Introduction and Overview, walks away with a sound understanding of Shaktism's essence, and a useful clarification regarding the two most common misunderstandings.
====Tantras====
There is a difference between "Tantra" and "Tantras" – as indicated, for example, by the fact that Wikipedia offers two separate articles on the two concepts. "Tantras" refers to the literary genre that produced the so-called Tantric philosophy. 
That is why the section begins, "In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures."
It is a more esoteric and technical discussion, and so I place it chronologically within the "Philosophical Development" section of the article (in which the Shakta literature is systematically discussed), for those interested in delving deeper into the concepts introduced in the Overview. After introducing a few "Tantra 101" concepts that dictate the content of these manuals, I move on the Adi Shankara's introduction of Tantric ideas into the Advaita Vedanta school, then to the mutual exchange of ideas between Tantra and the popular religion of the masses.
This provides a logical, fluid segue into the next section, on the "Rise of Popular Shaktism."
----
By contrast, the proposed reorganization – "bold" though it may be – makes two fatal errors: (1) It buries the important "Tantra" issue far too deeply in the article, where the casual reader is quite unlikely to ever find it, and thus "undoes" an important function of this article, at least as I see it; and (2) By indiscriminately mixing the concept of "Tantra" with the genre of "Tantras," it displays precisely the confusion that this article is attempting to dispel. For what it's worth, however, I did take Redtiger's suggestion of a title change for the top section. Thank you.
Hope that helps? (Devi bhakta 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tantra vs. Tantras: Article Structure 

message: There is a difference between "Tantra" and "Tantras" – as indicated, for example, by the fact that Wikipedia offers two separate articles on the two concepts. "Tantras" refers to the literary genre that produced the so-called Tantric philosophy. 
That is why the section begins, "In most schools of Shaktism, the Tantras – a large genre of ritual manuals dating from as early as the 7th century CE and as late as the 19th century – are central scriptures."
It is a more esoteric and technical discussion, and so I place it chronologically within the "Philosophical Development" section of the article (in which the Shakta literature is systematically discussed), for those interested in delving deeper into the concepts introduced in the Overview. After introducing a few "Tantra 101" concepts that dictate the content of these manuals, I move on the Adi Shankara's introduction of Tantric ideas into the Advaita Vedanta school, then to the mutual exchange of ideas between Tantra and the popular religion of the masses.
This provides a logical, fluid segue into the next section, on the "Rise of Popular Shaktism."
----
By contrast, the proposed reorganization – "bold" though it may be – makes two fatal errors: (1) It buries the important "Tantra" issue far too deeply in the article, where the casual reader is quite unlikely to ever find it, and thus "undoes" an important function of this article, at least as I see it; and (2) By indiscriminately mixing the concept of "Tantra" with the genre of "Tantras," it displays precisely the confusion that this article is attempting to dispel. For what it's worth, however, I did take Redtiger's suggestion of a title change for the top section. Thank you.
Hope that helps? (Devi bhakta 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tantras

message: As suggested in peer review. The article should be split into Daughter articles as it is TOO LOng. What do you think will be the best content to form a new article. In my view, the Philosophical Development and Origins part can be coupled to form "History of Shaktism" as in Shaivism article.--Redtigerxyz 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That probably makes sense. Let me think on it for a few days. It's hard for me to make a decision about ripping the article up like that when I've only just finished writing it. I don't have any distance on it yet ... (Devi bhakta 19:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once the "History of Shaktism" article is formed (if it is formed), a summary has to written of it. It's not "ripping the article"; all your hard work is preserved in another article.--Redtigerxyz 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughter articles 

message: I believe this article was assigned class 'B' prior to Devi Bhakta's improvements.  With his edits, I think it rates an 'A'
Per the discussion of quality: 
"Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting."
and
"Peer-review would be helpful at this stage."
As noted above, peer review has already been instituted, and feature article status has already been suggested.
(Jd-in-nv 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your vote of confidence, JD ... (Devi bhakta 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should ratings for the "Shaktism" article be carried over to the "History of Shaktism" as well? It is basically part of the same article -- really the intellectual core of the article -- and written at the same level, depth and completion, and with the same set of references. But at this point "History of Shaktism" has no rating and no link to the Hinduism Project except thru this article? Can anyone advise? Thanks! (Devi bhakta 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though the article is definitely close to FA in my view, i still we go through GA process which will help improve the article and "non-experts" will go through the article and will point shortcomings (if any). GA is a grade just above B. I think we let the grade remain B (cancel the A promotion) and go through GAC and officially get the grade by WP:CON. Another reason of the demotion is the low response to peer review. Getting the opinions of "non-experts" in GAC will be an indication to what objections may be raised in FAC. I would like to point that FA Ganesha went through the same process of peer review and GAC before FAC. --Redtigerxyz 07:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's hard for me to judge on this because I do not know the whole procedure and the way things are generally done here. For example, it is not at all clear to me how an admittedly artificial "demotion" will encourage peer review. We've had a few editors come by and neaten up this and that. It is not a topic on which a huge number of people have a large amount of knowledge. Does non-response mean no one is looking, or that no one is criticizing? I am not saying there is no room for improvement; there always is. But both editorially and substantively it seems pretty tight and complete for a B; even a "strategic" B? Would appreciate any explanation or clarification on these points. Thank you! (Devi bhakta 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "artificial demotion" MAY NOT encourage the response of peer review. Going for WP:GAC will help encourage editors to read through the article. Though an article can be ranked A without an GA; GA status is an official grading forming WP:CON by all editors of WP - experts (Hindus or Shaktas in particular) or non-experts (non-Hindus etc.). Sometimes, as Hindus aware of the Devi ideology and Sanskrit terms; we sometimes tend to not to explain the jargon to non-experts or miss the WP:NPOV. We can have "for an impartial reviewer to assess". "The process for designating an article as a good article is simpler than designating one as a featured article" and can be an indication to what objections may be raised in a futher FAC. There is no rule stating that an article should be gone through GAC before WP:FAC but most articles go through this process of GAC and then FAC. Moreover B is "Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process(like GAC and FAC)"--Redtigerxyz 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting to 'A' 

message: This article has come a long way.  Wow.
At a quick glance, I've noticed several terms that are linked more than once throughout the article.  My understanding of the Manual of style is that we generally link to a term the first time it is used and not thereafter (except with exceptionally long articles, which I don't think this one qualifies).  
As a suggestion, interested editors, might want to go through the article and do a little copy editing to remove those multiple wikilinks.
TheRingess (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Wikilinks 

message: It is barely mentioned in the article. It is now the second most visited religous shrine in India after Tirupati. Punjabi and Jammu have traditionally gone here and people from other parts of India now have started to visit. Jai Mata Di. GizzaDiscuss © 10:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned in History of Shaktism, Modern developments.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a little worrisome though. I think a lot of people skim through and do not notice there is a "daughter article" -- the Historical section is one of the more interesting features of the article, in my opinion. Hope we haven't "banished it to the provinces" by splitting it out of main article. Opinions? (Devi bhakta (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vaishno Devi]]