Talk:Khajuraho Group of Monuments

message: Khajuraho is not a holy site so I have removed it from Hindu holi sites category. i love tea
::It is a holy site in the Jain religion, which derives from Hindiism. As there is no Wiki code for Jainism, I have replaced the original link.--Anthony.bradbury 21:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Swami, would you mind explaining ?  That looks an awful lot like a scantily clad Ganesha dancing on the outside of a Khajuraho temple to me.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 21:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khajuraho 

message: why is there an almost apologetic tone about describing the sexual explicity. it is there and it is only to be discerned wisely as to why it is there.
The following statement has appeared out of place, among the References: 
The sexual imagery at Khajuraho is an expression the Tantra Marg, or the Path to Salvation Through Sexual Yoga. The finest examples of sush temple carvings are at Konarak, in the state of Orissa. Since the the classical "Hindu" temples do not have an interior space as such, the carvings were all on the exterior. The iconographic carvings in India achieve the identicle purpose of those found on European Cathedrals, in that they make subjects and teachings available to the illiterate worshippers.
Gregory Whittingham, Ethnographer
The text, which was entered by an anonymous editor, provides no reference.  "Gregory Whittingham" does not come up on Google searches.  The text makes sense, but clashes with the rest of the article.  It has mis-spellings.  Until the text can be integrated with the text and supported by verifiable reference, I believe it should be removed.Fconaway 08:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The sexual imagery

message: Can there be a separate page on Khajuraho temple? - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Khajuraho temple

message: with Madhya Pradesh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Madhya Pradesh or one of its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the irrelavent categories to the article   --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 12:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Madhya Pradesh workgroup Addition 

message: The move  is simply uncalled for and unwarranted. That is from a user from Germany. I will list this for immediate undo. Piano no who (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  move 

message: The section on why the carvings are "mistaken" as homosexual contains absolutely no references or citations.  This should either be purged from the article or clarified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.44.30 (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: The botany before being converted to parkland is described as both jungle and semi-dessert scrub. An expert should clarify this.I1abnrk (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecology 

message: The following sub-sections should be considered to be added on this page. The content on temples in mainly in STUB format and can be improvised. The authentic references and citation can be referred from following external sites:
1. Archeological Survey of India, Bhopal Division (http://asibhopal.nic.in/monument/chhatarpur.html). This is index page for Khajuraho Group of Monuments and has all the related links for information on temples.
 
Rajenver (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Khajuraho Temples 

message: The language in this article is too complicated to me. I'm not a native speaker, although I can read articles in English with a dictionary here and there, but translating this article required from me a very frequent, inconvenient, usage of a dictionary. I'm suprised of myself that I didn't quit in the middle. Tomer T (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's complicated 

message: A query posted at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests  raises an issue about the table of monuments. It isn't entirely clear what the second column, 'Modern name' is referring to. Is it, as I suspect, the name now used for the temple? If so, it should probably say so explicitly - it is confusing otherwise, as Chitragupta for example is also the name of a Hindu deity - and not apparently an alternate name for the deity Surya. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table needs clarification 

message: The August 16 2014 version of the article has following issues:
#Major sections of this article lack any citations, with some sections inconsistent with scholarly publications on Khajuraho.
#The article lacks a summary on temple design plans, symbolism and other historical aspects of Khajuraho group of monuments.
I will try to address these issues. If someone has plans to address this, or has objections to the above, please post. It will save me some effort. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information and issues 

message: They are temples, not monuments. And they are not a single group, some are in groups and some are isolated.  Malaiya (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Khajuraho Group of Monuments"?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion