Talk:Lingam

message: Shivling as a phallic symbol is a post-Vedic ideology centered to discredit The actual representation. A lot of people get the wrong idea because of this misinformation when in reality, the Lingam is a pillar of fire according to Linga Puran. The correlation to phallus narrative should be changed with accurate information. SanatanScriptures (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide WP:RS, and take note of WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a common claim, but the evidence of early representations such as the Gudimallam Lingam, not to mention early images of Shiva with an erect penis, is pretty unequivocal as to at least the origin of the linga as a phallic symbol. Scholarly sources agree. Those so set against this should ask themselves what is so terrible about this. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Gudimallam lingam is being confused for a circumcised penis in a civilization where penis is left uncircumcised. You are demonizing Hindu gods. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Phooey! Who says it is circumcised? Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shivling as a phallus needs to be removed 

message: I have edited multiple times with better reference than most cited here and even then the changes are reverted. Why is that? SanatanScriptures (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you add a specific point of view, from a non-scholarly source, to the lead; the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which gives an overview of what relevant scholarly sources (WP:RS) have to say about the topic. Please familiarize yourself with those policies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Non Hindus and non Indians will now say that they know more about Hinduism than it's practitioners? Dont talk rubbish. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does my information on the accuracy of Shivling not being a phallic symbol keep reverting? 

message: this is just pure demonization of Hindu gods. We all know what will happen to the writer who is blaspheming against islam. And we also know hindus won't do that. But that doesn't mean you just abuse Hindu gods without repercussions. XK2aXsmasherX (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddy need to removed false notion of wendy dongier like scholars which are far from any traditional sources and using colonial standard and psychoanalysis regarding the text and misinterpret it. She is same scholar which also psychoanalysis the ganesha god which is very derogatory in nature and also called the bhagavad geeta text which promoting violence and ridicule the bhagavad geeta. Cite such controversial scholar which is far from authority over hinduism show biasedness of this article. 223.233.83.34 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

text: This is simlilar to the situation for swastika (see Talk:Swastika as well). People object to using that word because of its association with Nazis, but it is clear that swastika is the common name for hakenkreuz. Lingam is clearly a common name for a phallic symbol for Shiva in today's English. Peaceray (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shivling is not phallus 

message: Hi @WikiLinuz I removed the reference to Kramrisch 1994, p. 14. But you reverted it as "not erroneous". I removed this because page 14 of Kramrisch's publication "The Presence of Siva" does not include a critique of Wendy Doniger and Rohit Dasgupta's interpretation of the view of linga as extrapolations of what was originally a phallic symbol (as is claimed in the article). This is therefore an erroneous citation. The author may well make such a critique elsewhere (sorry I can't help on whether she does), but not as per the citation provided. 
I'm a relative novice at on wiki, but as a scholar I try to be correct and accurate. Just trying to be helpful with a correction :-)
If you agree (I acknowledge that I may be missing something very obvious here), then perhaps we can revert to remove that citation or provide an alternative correct citation :-)
Thanks FaresM (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous reference removal