This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chhinnamasta article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Chhinnamasta has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Chhinnamasta received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Chhinnamasta → Chinnamasta — Relisting for additional input. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: AdamBMorgan ( talk) 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Problem resolved so:-
Good article review passed. - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Copied Corinne's comments from my talk:-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Redtigerxyz -- Although I have posted the GOCE template indicating that I have completed the copy-edit for Chhinnamasta, there are a few issues that need to be cleared up before the article can be considered to be in good shape.
The easy ones first:
1) I saw "goddess" and "goddesses" both capitalized and in lower-case. If there is no particular reason why it is capitalized in some places, I think these should be consistent, and I recommend lower-case. However, sometimes it was not clear to me whether these words were always referring to Chhinnamasta or to some other goddess. If there are some instances where the words refer to some other goddess, we've got to make sure it is clear to whom the words refer. Just let me know whether you approve of all lower-case or not, and I'll make the corrections.
2) I saw "mahavidha" and "mahavidyas" both capitalized and in lower-case. I think these should be consistent throughout the article. I don't know which is correct, but I suspect lower-case would be all right. Just let me know.
3) In the third paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins, you have a sentence that begins:
The tense of the verb (past tense) suggests that this was quite a while ago. If he studied the text in the last ten or fifteen years, and is still alive, we might decide to change "studied" to present perfect "has studied", which suggests fairly recent research, or research that continues up to fairly close to the present. If the research was quite a while ago, or the scholar is no longer living, then "studied" is correct, but it might help the reader to know in approximately what decades he studied the text, such as "In the 1920s..." or "In the 1970s and 1980s,..."
4) Whatever you decide about the verb study will affect the tense of the next two verbs, "found" and "are". If you stay with "studied", then "found" is correct, and to be really correct, "are" should be changed to "were" (even if still true). If you select "has studied", then "found" should be changed to "has found", and "are" can remain "The are".
5) The last sentence in the fourth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:
I know it must be clear to you, but it may not be clear to your readers what "Apart from Chinnamunda" means. Take into account what is in the preceding sentence. That phrase, "Apart from Chinnamunda" appears to be a kind of transitional phrase making a bridge from one sentence to the next, but this bridge is not clear. Do you mean "In addition to Chinnamunda" (even that may not be clear)? Or "Regardless of what Benard says," or "Regardless of the connection between Chhinnamasta and Chinnamunda,"? Or something else? If you are not sure, then perhaps we can take out that phrase completely. The sentence about van Kooij would still make sense.
6) The first sentence of the fifth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:
I'm wondering whether "acknowledges" is the best verb here. It kind of suggests that he is merely agreeing with another scholar rather than putting forth his own ideas. What do you think of using "recognizes", "sees", "has discovered", or "proposes"?
I think I like "sees" or "proposes" the best.
7) The last sentence of that paragraph is:
I read about "recreation" in the section Chhinnamasta#Destruction, Transformation and Recreation (I'm not sure "transformation" and "recreation" should be capitalized), but I don't recall reading about a "rejoining" motif, or anything about "rejoining". I assume this means the rejoining of the head and the body. If this is something special to the tale of the goddess Renuka, then this sentence needs to be slightly re-worded, something like:
8) In the lede, you say, "Chhinnamasta...is one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother." The first sentence of the section Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:
The reader might scratch his or her head at "in the group"? (Which group?) I think the sentence would read fine if you omitted "in the group". Also, if Chhinnamasta is an "aspect" of a goddess, then "goddess" cannot really be referring to Chhinnamasta, and the reader will wonder "What goddess is this?" Is it Devi? Can we say "identifying her as a fierce aspect of Devi"?
9) I am puzzled by the clause that comes shortly after this:
You've got a long, detailed article on Chhinnamasta, mentioning traditions, temples, etc., in several parts of India and Nepal. Not all of that is discussed in connection with the Mahavidyas. I would either omit this or explain what you mean.
10) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:
This sentence is not clear. It's kind of clear up to "including Chhinnamasta". After that, you lose me. It appears that "the first wife of the god Shiva" does not have a name and gave birth to a daughter by a man (god?) other than her husband Shiva – quite confusing.
11) Shortly after that is the following sentence:
This sentence is totally unclear.
Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.
12) The next sentence is also unclear:
Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.
13) The next sentence, the last sentence in the paragraph is:
I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.
14) I'm wondering if it would help readers if you separated written textual references and oral legends somehow. You could either make two sections on the same level as the "Legends and textual references" section heading is now, or you could make two sub-headings within that larger section. Late in that section you refer to the first oral legend and then the second oral legend. It might be easier for a reader to look back and find the first and the second oral legends if they were in their own section or sub-section. Just a suggestion.
15) In the section Chhinnamasta#Control over or embodiment of sexual desire, particularly in the first two paragraphs, you present two very different interpretations of Chhinnamasta. I am a little puzzled by how you seem to present them as equally valid interpretations, even though the two interpretations are almost opposite. I'm wondering if you could explain whether these contrasting interpretations are considered both true and valid at the same time, or whether among scholars one interpretation is more favored than the other, or if one interpretation is more prevalent in certain places and the other interpretation more prevalent in others, or at different times in history.
collapses into one." -- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This goddess is a very multi-faceted and complex goddess, and you have covered it all quite well. – Corinne ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Corinne, "The Shakta-pramoda warns that improper worship would have severe consequences: Chhinnamasta would behead such a person and drink his blood. It further categorizes worship for Chhinnamasta to be followed by householders and renouncers." The sentence was changed to "It further stipulates that worship of Chhinnamasta is to be followed by householders and renouncers." I have changed it to " It further differentiates between worship rituals to be followed by householders and renouncers." What I want to say is:
How to convey this meaning? Please help. --
Redtigerxyz
Talk 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Done –
Corinne (
talk)
14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I am puzzled by this phrase in a recent edit by Ms Sarah Welch:
What does "meditate on her with form" mean (specifically "with form")? This will not be comprehensible to an average Wikipedia reader. I think it needs to be filled out a bit to make it completely clear. – Corinne ( talk) 14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Indu, reverted your edits as Chinnamasta Bhagawati is not the same goddess as this Chinnamasta. Chinnamasta (Chhinnamasta) is used as a generic name for goddess icons whose heads are broken; but are still worshipped. A similar temple appears in MP, India too (can't remember place). No legend oor iconography links Chinnamasta Bhagawati to the mahavidya. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose, a fresh start for this article in FAC would be better. Since the FAC is archived, I am replying to your comments here:
I request you to waive the 2 week cooling period. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chhinnamasta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps heroic Tantrikas was meant to be esoteric Tantrikas? DynV ( talk) 15:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chhinnamasta article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Chhinnamasta has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Chhinnamasta received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Chhinnamasta → Chinnamasta — Relisting for additional input. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 21:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: AdamBMorgan ( talk) 14:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Problem resolved so:-
Good article review passed. - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 12:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Copied Corinne's comments from my talk:-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Redtigerxyz -- Although I have posted the GOCE template indicating that I have completed the copy-edit for Chhinnamasta, there are a few issues that need to be cleared up before the article can be considered to be in good shape.
The easy ones first:
1) I saw "goddess" and "goddesses" both capitalized and in lower-case. If there is no particular reason why it is capitalized in some places, I think these should be consistent, and I recommend lower-case. However, sometimes it was not clear to me whether these words were always referring to Chhinnamasta or to some other goddess. If there are some instances where the words refer to some other goddess, we've got to make sure it is clear to whom the words refer. Just let me know whether you approve of all lower-case or not, and I'll make the corrections.
2) I saw "mahavidha" and "mahavidyas" both capitalized and in lower-case. I think these should be consistent throughout the article. I don't know which is correct, but I suspect lower-case would be all right. Just let me know.
3) In the third paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins, you have a sentence that begins:
The tense of the verb (past tense) suggests that this was quite a while ago. If he studied the text in the last ten or fifteen years, and is still alive, we might decide to change "studied" to present perfect "has studied", which suggests fairly recent research, or research that continues up to fairly close to the present. If the research was quite a while ago, or the scholar is no longer living, then "studied" is correct, but it might help the reader to know in approximately what decades he studied the text, such as "In the 1920s..." or "In the 1970s and 1980s,..."
4) Whatever you decide about the verb study will affect the tense of the next two verbs, "found" and "are". If you stay with "studied", then "found" is correct, and to be really correct, "are" should be changed to "were" (even if still true). If you select "has studied", then "found" should be changed to "has found", and "are" can remain "The are".
5) The last sentence in the fourth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:
I know it must be clear to you, but it may not be clear to your readers what "Apart from Chinnamunda" means. Take into account what is in the preceding sentence. That phrase, "Apart from Chinnamunda" appears to be a kind of transitional phrase making a bridge from one sentence to the next, but this bridge is not clear. Do you mean "In addition to Chinnamunda" (even that may not be clear)? Or "Regardless of what Benard says," or "Regardless of the connection between Chhinnamasta and Chinnamunda,"? Or something else? If you are not sure, then perhaps we can take out that phrase completely. The sentence about van Kooij would still make sense.
6) The first sentence of the fifth paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Origins is:
I'm wondering whether "acknowledges" is the best verb here. It kind of suggests that he is merely agreeing with another scholar rather than putting forth his own ideas. What do you think of using "recognizes", "sees", "has discovered", or "proposes"?
I think I like "sees" or "proposes" the best.
7) The last sentence of that paragraph is:
I read about "recreation" in the section Chhinnamasta#Destruction, Transformation and Recreation (I'm not sure "transformation" and "recreation" should be capitalized), but I don't recall reading about a "rejoining" motif, or anything about "rejoining". I assume this means the rejoining of the head and the body. If this is something special to the tale of the goddess Renuka, then this sentence needs to be slightly re-worded, something like:
8) In the lede, you say, "Chhinnamasta...is one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother." The first sentence of the section Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:
The reader might scratch his or her head at "in the group"? (Which group?) I think the sentence would read fine if you omitted "in the group". Also, if Chhinnamasta is an "aspect" of a goddess, then "goddess" cannot really be referring to Chhinnamasta, and the reader will wonder "What goddess is this?" Is it Devi? Can we say "identifying her as a fierce aspect of Devi"?
9) I am puzzled by the clause that comes shortly after this:
You've got a long, detailed article on Chhinnamasta, mentioning traditions, temples, etc., in several parts of India and Nepal. Not all of that is discussed in connection with the Mahavidyas. I would either omit this or explain what you mean.
10) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Chhinnamasta#Legends and textual references is:
This sentence is not clear. It's kind of clear up to "including Chhinnamasta". After that, you lose me. It appears that "the first wife of the god Shiva" does not have a name and gave birth to a daughter by a man (god?) other than her husband Shiva – quite confusing.
11) Shortly after that is the following sentence:
This sentence is totally unclear.
Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.
12) The next sentence is also unclear:
Also, I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.
13) The next sentence, the last sentence in the paragraph is:
I don't see the connection between this and Chhinnamasta.
14) I'm wondering if it would help readers if you separated written textual references and oral legends somehow. You could either make two sections on the same level as the "Legends and textual references" section heading is now, or you could make two sub-headings within that larger section. Late in that section you refer to the first oral legend and then the second oral legend. It might be easier for a reader to look back and find the first and the second oral legends if they were in their own section or sub-section. Just a suggestion.
15) In the section Chhinnamasta#Control over or embodiment of sexual desire, particularly in the first two paragraphs, you present two very different interpretations of Chhinnamasta. I am a little puzzled by how you seem to present them as equally valid interpretations, even though the two interpretations are almost opposite. I'm wondering if you could explain whether these contrasting interpretations are considered both true and valid at the same time, or whether among scholars one interpretation is more favored than the other, or if one interpretation is more prevalent in certain places and the other interpretation more prevalent in others, or at different times in history.
collapses into one." -- Redtigerxyz Talk 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
This goddess is a very multi-faceted and complex goddess, and you have covered it all quite well. – Corinne ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Corinne, "The Shakta-pramoda warns that improper worship would have severe consequences: Chhinnamasta would behead such a person and drink his blood. It further categorizes worship for Chhinnamasta to be followed by householders and renouncers." The sentence was changed to "It further stipulates that worship of Chhinnamasta is to be followed by householders and renouncers." I have changed it to " It further differentiates between worship rituals to be followed by householders and renouncers." What I want to say is:
How to convey this meaning? Please help. --
Redtigerxyz
Talk 18:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Done –
Corinne (
talk)
14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I am puzzled by this phrase in a recent edit by Ms Sarah Welch:
What does "meditate on her with form" mean (specifically "with form")? This will not be comprehensible to an average Wikipedia reader. I think it needs to be filled out a bit to make it completely clear. – Corinne ( talk) 14:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Indu, reverted your edits as Chinnamasta Bhagawati is not the same goddess as this Chinnamasta. Chinnamasta (Chhinnamasta) is used as a generic name for goddess icons whose heads are broken; but are still worshipped. A similar temple appears in MP, India too (can't remember place). No legend oor iconography links Chinnamasta Bhagawati to the mahavidya. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose, a fresh start for this article in FAC would be better. Since the FAC is archived, I am replying to your comments here:
I request you to waive the 2 week cooling period. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chhinnamasta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps heroic Tantrikas was meant to be esoteric Tantrikas? DynV ( talk) 15:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)