Talk:Kali/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pujaris & Pujarinis, shouldn't there be a section on worship??? niranjan108 21:45 4 Jun 2006 (UTC)

---

Can anyone change the Sanskrit spelling of Kali? I tried changing it myself but I don't seem to have the fonts. You're missing an accent on the first letter.

"Her poor reputation in the West came from the cult of the Thuggee, Muslims who took the goddess Kali as their deity."

What???

---

I don't know how much it is responsible for the Western image of Kali, but the thugees did exist. The thugee (from which we get the word 'thug') were a secretive Hindu religious group active around Calcutta, who murdered people, until the British destroyed them. But (AFAIK) they definitely weren't Muslims -- they were Hindus. -- SJK

So, you are accepting obviously questionable British reports on the Thugee as true history? The very fact that you point out that the British destroyed them, during their colonial occupation of India, points out why such reports cannot be trusted at face value. The fact of the matter is there are no credible sources which back up the British story that Hindus sacrificed children to Kali and went on murderous rampages. I suppose if you want to take Indiana Jones' word for it, but really the British often used such propogranda campaigns to justify their brutal occupation of peoples they deemed 'savages.' How do you make an argument for why a certain region and a certain group of people deserve to be destroyed and ruled? Simple claim they have barbaric cults that murder children. I don't know that the thugee were Muslims, there are no trustworthy sources detailing their existence and activities at all. In all my years of studying Hinduism there has been nothing that would lead me to any other conclusion than such stories are simply the Western World's way of demonizing a tradition that doesn't mirror its own. I would also like to thank whoever wrote the article for not giving the child sacrificing murderous cult stories any room for possible validation.

---

I've found a few websites saying they were Muslims. But by everything I know, if they took Kali as their deity, they weren't Muslims.

---

The existence of the Thuggee is debatable. William Sleeman needed a name for himself and may have played up the existence of Dacoits (highway robbers) for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. See "The Strangled Traveler" by Martine Van Woerkens,

. In any case, Sleeman DID insist that the Thuggee were made up of both Hindus and Muslims. I don't really see how he managed to square the two, and he published a book on the subject, the name of which escapes me at the moment, but it's veracity is HIGHLY debatable by scholars at this point.

-- Sedusa66

I have removed another passage mentioning "the west". I think "the west" needs to be defined. Do you mean "western world" like Europe and U.S.? If that is so, what does it matter? The western world hardly knows anything about Kali. And her presentation as dark and violent is better seen in India itself. Black is as dark as it gets, wild gaze with tongue hanging out, how much more bewildering does it get? Take any number of Bollywood films to it that use her image (e.g. Karan-Arjun, Koyla) and this association is perfectly warranted without "the west". Gschadow 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. Be bold and remove it. --BorgQueen 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Although Kali is standing on an inert Shiva (her husband), he is not dead, just inert. And the severed head she's holding is that of a demon, not Shiva's. If there are any sites that talk about Shiva's corpse or Shiva's severed head, let me know. (I haven't edited any pages as I'm a new user. I just went through the Talkpages rules which say never to edit another user's words.)
Jay 21:45 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

The author of the original text has not commented even after 1 month of my queries. Hence I have made the updations.
Jay 11:26, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

20:31, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

ya, merge and redirect. Jay 06:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

You guys have put a wrong picture there. The first picture there that says picture depicting goddess Kali is actually the picture of Kaal Bhairab. I know cos I am from Nepal and that statue is near my house!! Please change it. Kali is different from Kaal Bhairab.

Regmi 11:34, 08 Aug 2005 (NST)

Hi

I just added a cleanup template to the top of this topic. I don't know nearly enough about Hindu spirituality to speak to the veracity of this article's content, but it contains sentences like, "Many people also believe her to be the same as Durga, even though this is not true as Durga is the terrible aspect of Devi, not the Shakti of Shiva."

Who are the "many people"? Who says this is not true? What is the "Shakti of Shiva"?

In another sentence, the article says, "Some of her greatest 'bhaktas' (loving devotees) are to be found in the West Bengal, South India and Kashmir traditions." By what standard are these "bhaktas" her "greatest"?

Could someone with knowledge of this subject and a firm understanding of Wikipedia style please take a look at this and help out? For all I know, the information in here may be great; but the writing asks me to take too much on faith. CKA3KA (Skazka) 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no experience of creating Wikipedia articles, but I could work in collaboration with someone wanting to clean this up. The problem with it for me is one of content: this article attempts to present a homogenous Kali who simply doesn't exist. For example: The bhaktas in Bengal overwhelmingly view Kali as a benevolent goddess, as McDermott's research has shown. Kali is not simplisticly the consort of Shiva, though she is portrayed in sexual union with him. She is not always 'an aspect of the Great Mother', in fact this is a fairly recent idea Her emergence from Durga should be put into context with various other goddesses who transform into her or create her at times of wrath.

Stylisically: is it possible to use the more recent (and correct) transliterations: as far as I can see it is possible to write Kālī, but the correct version of S for Siva is unavailable.

I'm more than happy to attempt to edit this page and have someone else knock it into shape, or email (or post here) the content I think should be included and have someone else insert it correctly

This like many other pages of Hindu Gods/Goddesses need to seriously be cleaned up. I can participate here to a small extent. Since you are not that familiar with Wikipedia, you can rewrite the stuff that needs to be, then I can format it to Wikipedia standard. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 11:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have pretty much rewritten the article: I'm a little bit scared, I've never done this before.

I will come back to this over the weekend and try and flesh out some areas. If you can guide me how to use Indian letters, or more complex accenting (as is used in the Shiva section) this would be useful, as almost all the terms should have at least some.

I also don't know how to insert pictures, or where the legality of such a move is. I have referred to one scholar, but am not sure where this stands legally... if its OK I will get a reference or whatever if this is needed.

This probably could do with a contrasting picture of Kali as the benevolent mother goddess, I'll try and find one, but don't know how to insert them

131.111.8.104 14:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done! Thank you! The style of this article inspires much more confidence than did its previous incarnation. I only have a couple of minor questions:

1. Under the Origin heading, I saw the word emnate. Is this a word I don't know, or was it supposed to be emanate, or perhaps emulate?
2. The last sentence in this same section says, "... some take this to be a sign of the great potential power of women, when their Shakti is not controlled by and gifted to a male consort." The second paragraph indicates that shakti means wife. If that's the case, then I'm not sure what the sentence is trying to say.

Again, thank you. A dramatic improvement. --CKA3KA (Skazka) 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No, shakti doesn't mean wife. Please see Shakti. --BorgQueen 12:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

BorgQueen, I moved your post down a line so that it was no longer contained within my post. Thank you for the clarification, but I'm still not sure what I'm seeing.

What is the article trying to say, near the middle of the second paragraph, when it says, "… the name Kali is sometimes used for Energy in her form as Shiva's wife, or Shakti"? After reading the Shakti article, I think the Kali article is trying to say either that the name Kali is used to mean energy or shakti in the form of Shiva's wife, or the name Kali is used to mean energy in the form of Shiva's wife, or in the form of Shiva's shakti.

I hope I don't sound too obtuse, but I imagine that I probably won't be the only person to misunderstand after reading this article. Experience tells me that if one person doesn't get it, then there will probably be others. --CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you don't sound obtuse at all. You have a good point, actually. I just deleted the sentence which wasn't too well written. Most, if not all, goddesses are facets of shakti, and if the original writer was trying to mention on the connection between Kali and shakti it has to be told in an entirely different context. --BorgQueen 23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right about getting rid of the 'Shakti'. 'Shakti' is the energy usually conceived as feminine, but certainly isn't synonomous with consort. Did I really say wife? I hope that was just left in from before, I know of no case of Kali being presented as married to Shiva.

Thanks for the kind comments, guys.

131.111.8.103 15:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

---

took out link in "see also" section: "* Saint Sarah, also called "Sara-la-Kali"" because saint sarah has nothing to do with Kali. Sadartha 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Put back Sara-la-Kali, as she does in fact have a link to this goddess - the Roma are originally from India, and Kali was the name given to their mother goddess. Sara-la-Kali is often regarded as an aspect or follower of the Hindu goddess Kali.

Proserpine 9 May 2006

You may wish to put the desired information in a "see also" section, with a link to Saint Sarah a brief explanation of that article's relevance, and a source citation to support your position regarding the relevance of the Saint Sarah to Kali. I suspect that would be very helpful to interested readers. David Traver 11:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the 'meaning of Kali' section is accurate, but in my experience, most apparent etymological explanations aren't in this area. It's also written very poorly.

I'm dubious about neatening it up unless we're sure it has some actual basis

I added the Tantric interpretation of Kali's tongue sticking out. As explored in chapeter 3 of McDermott's "Encountering Kali", the legend of her sticking out her tongue in shame is a later interpretation in order to domesticate the goddess, to make her more "proper". The original Tantric symbolism is something else, though. --Snowgrouse 11:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is :[http: //www angelfire com/ma/ramakrishna/kali html Selection of Ramakrishna Quotes on Mother Kali]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
• User:A. B./To do list#Abusers

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) --A. B. 03:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the opening paragraph to make it more concise - the information about the etymology of Kali's name was duplicated in the "Meaning" para, and seems to fit better there. I've also given the article a brief copy-edit, fixing some grammatical errors, typos, etc. It probably still means some more work - there are plenty of sentences in there that are fairly ambiguous or could otherwise do with clarification, but I don't know nearly enough about Kali or Hinduism in general to know what's right and what's wrong. Tpth 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I added Kali to the Category:Mother goddesses page. I know there are problems/impossibilities with creating a homogenous article on Kali due to her different sets of worshipers, different stories, etc., but there is a school of thought that worships her as the Mother, and I thought it balanced with the Destroyer goddesses category link.

I think I'm going to do more work on this article in the near future; a friend of mine has most of the books listed in the Biblio. Time to do some reading... --Parcequilfaut 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few sentences which, I hope, will clear up some confusion between the male and female deities of the same name. Kali with the "long" a is the goddess.

20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Cali

merge

• Support, The merge seems obvious, if the "Cali" bit can be included here without much of a bump, or if it will be notable in this article. --mordicai. 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I now this poll thing is by the book, but I really don't think it is necessary. The page is like three sentences long and the original author even has her listed as a Demon. I highly doubt it, but that person might be confusing her with the male demon of the same name from the Kalki Purana and the Mahabharata. Just put "Cali" in the first setence like "Kali (also spelled Cali}". Or something like that.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC))
• Against, Better to leave this reference to the Hindu Goddess, while the other reference deals with the occult references. To put 'Cali' as an alternate spelling is not strictly true...certainly it is not true in any Hindu references - only in the occult.

- The page is only three sentences long. It’s not offering any real insight at all. It's best to merge them and work the "occult" material into the main article. (Ghostexorcist 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

• Against, I'm a scholar of Indian Philosophy & Religion, and don't really think the merge is necessary, warranted, or even a good idea, without very, very clear explanation attached to it. Cali is misspelled, for one thing (not uncommon in those days), this is an Orientalist reference, and is clearly not accurate in its portrayal of the goddess Kali. If it were to be merged, the material would have to be explained and set aside as patently incorrect in its portrayal of Kali the goddess. Those who suggest that de Plancy is confusing her with the male demon Kali are not versed in the Orientalist view of this goddess that prevailed in the 18th-20th century, which is akin to believing that the portrayal of the goddess Kali in the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom film is at all even remotely correct (it's pure fantasy and fiction). In fact, I think maybe I should just add to the de Plancy Cali reference... (
  girlchick
  11:44 23 November 2006)

- Please do. The "Cali (Demon)" page is just way too small to keep on its own. If it can't be greatly expanded, it needs to be integrated into the article. Even a small section on "Orientalist View of Kali" can be created. (Ghostexorcist 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

• Support, pending more information that this needs to be at a separate page. It appears to be a related concept/variant, but I'm willing to be convinced the other way. -- nae'blis 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC")

- I've never heard of "Cali", but I did see a very disturbing propoganda film made by Christian fundamentalists that misrepresented Kali (and Shiva ) as demons and evil forces. This was screened at Brown University around 1994-1995, as an "educational" tool about Hinduism. If "Cali" is referring to this phenomena of misrepresentation, I think it would be wise to have a section about it. In the same vein, the first photograph on this article is not a "common" one of Kali. It seems, again, to be an artistic rendition not usually found in the subcontinent, and reminds me of the (controversial) stamps found on New Age chappals and bags and toilet-seats, a commercial representation that has little connection to the Kalis of South Asia. Subcontinental 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Against: If anything, as a native Californian, "Cali" is often what people will call our state, that seems more likely than a demonic oirtrayal of Kali. I suggest adding a disambiguation page. Sedusa66 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Sedusa66

A concept needs to be added to the minds of the Wikipedia editors. That of individuals or whole cultures being wrong. It doesn't change one of two facts. Either, a culture can be wrong for centuries, or else an individual person or other culture can believe and publish another culture as wrong for centuries. During this century our schools lied to us in America and told us Columbus was the only man who beleived the earth was round. We were told that schools of Europe lied to their people saying you would fall off the edge of the Earth at sea. This was published despite the fact that the whole world knew it was a sphere and had calculated it almost accurately since the Greeks of 200 BC. What Columbus differed in was his European discovery of America came due to his insisting Earth was smaller and that the Atlantic and Pacific were one ocean only as wide as the Atlantic, a very small Earth. Point learned here is that all cultures will either lie about other cultures so that it becomes in our books for centuries as that cultures belief, or those cultures do have false scientific beliefs for centuries, or are even divided in the majority/minority concerning those beliefs. America for example has secular books that prove permeated with Catholic belief such as saying that historically Jesus had not family brothers. That doesn't mean they were correct, or that minority churches of America never knew he did have brothers. Therefore, dispute on whether Kali and Kali were confused or not, if we confuse them today, how are you so sure that they haven't been confused and crossed paths thruout history. It is foolish to not realize man has done it and will do it. Lastly, what is forgotten is that while men argue over what Kali is and is not, it is like arguing about Osiris. While you argue is he sun or moon or Orion you ignore they all share the fact that these are all reborn. Osiris can be anything reborn, or just worshipped as one of them and so dividing the cults into sun versus moon versus Orion. Must we be this way too, how can you stress opening our eyes to learn if we are busy ruling everything as false sources. Did not false sources become part world beliefs, is the world all true and not false so the false never becomes the claimed published norm of truth! Grow up you children, you claim you are adults and then you discipline other adults as children claiming to discipline children. Let the reader judge what is false, dont go editing it out. i would rather have someone edit my words of wordiness for brevity sake than wipe them out as if to be God. I dont mind someone who understands my words to say it simpler and clearer for someone to see it too, it is an admirable thing to do for someone.69.76.46.169 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a stretch, but according to various folklore and historical documents, there were two people named “Zhou Tong” during China’s

Zhou Tong (monk) was the historical archery teacher of General Yue Fei, a famous martyr. My point is, just because the names of the two are similar, like the goddess and demon, does not make them the same person. (Ghostexorcist

23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Kali Sothis and Arabic (anonymous IP 69.76.46.169)

It says Kali is from feminine Kala as black time, and although the Kali Yuga is said to mean time of terror or terrible age, the article says that being masculine that it isn't to be confused with it. How can black time and terrible age not be confused, they sound exact. I submit the fact that the article on Sothis says it is Kali, which Sothis is not only a star to measure time but does so in 4 years by leaping one day. I also submit the empty quarter or desert quarter of Arabia which is known as the Khali and translated as quarter. Then there is the picture of Kali who although appears to have 8 cut off arms hanging as a skirt around her waist to total 12 arms, of zodiac or Jupiter or the moon, there is a hidden 9th arm (total 13) as if to be the 13th moon. However, specificaly 4 are intact from her shoulders as the chosen method for time, and the right hand appears to be vernal spring because the sickle is autumn making the right two arms the equinoxes, and the left two arms as winter death's head cut off, with the summer bowl of fire. How can you say that Kali didn't evolve from the word 4 if even the Kali Yuga is one of four ages, the greatest being Krta yuga (Quarta yuga). -- anonymous IP 69.76.46.169, 08:55, 5 February 2007

The Goddess Kali is not associated with

Kali (Demon). HE is a separate deity and was a major player in the Mahabharata and the Kalki Purana. His most famous avatar is King Duryodhana from the Mahabharata.(Ghostexorcist

14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Horrible

This article looks horrible now that most of the pictures have been taken out. Plus, the gallery section is a mess because someone does not know how to do the code correctly. Bring the pictures back and clean up the gallery section! (Ghostexorcist 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Dear Ghostexorcist. We appreciate your comments and feedback despite the tone. Regrets for the formatting problems. We believe that the earlier image did not do justice to Kali. We will find another image which we think is more accurate. We have included a verse from poet Ramprasad Sen depicting the grace of the Goddess. We will work on the formatting to make it appear clean. Thanks.(Dipendra2007)

We who? You are the only one who is making these abrupt edits to the page. Besides, your changes have been reverted by two different editors (including myself). These changes should be discussed with other editors before being initiated. (Ghostexorcist 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

please check this Aror, there are many kali Temples in Sindhi. Khalidkhoso 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This section moved up in the page so as bring the later three sections together, as they are the same discussion. Imc 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(The title renamed by user Imc for clarity)

I'm starting this line of discussion in the hopes that ALL editors of this page will come to an amiable agreement over the lead photo. Although I like the current one (Image:Kali2.JPG), I think the pic from the "Popular form of Kali" section (Image:Kaligoddess.jpg) could also be used. It is still rathful, but toned down a bit. Thoughts? (Ghostexorcist 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

I was out of Wikipedia for a while and so probably late in the game. I shot the picture from temple mural in Madurai, as I felt the depiction of Kali was pretty interesting. I'm a devout Hindu and I dont think the picture is abusive or uncommon with what people use. Just my 2 cents. Balajiviswanathan 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dipendra that the picture you suggest is not appropriate given what is followed in Hindu households. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dipendra2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrinaliniB (talk • contribs)

I can tell that you are new to Wikipedia. I have left a message on your talke page. Please refrain from deleting the picture without discussion. (Ghostexorcist 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

As I've said before,

statements like Kali is "...a multi-faceted Goddess who is at once the nurturer and shatterer, the upholder of the family as well as one who stands outside all social norms", will try to whitewash the page of any material that they feel is "grotesque" or "distasteful". That is the reason why I have initiated this section for open dialogue. The article is to be balanced; showing the good and bad views of the goddess. Not just the good, not just the bad!

I believe that no one “against” the current picture has even read my original comment about switching pictures around in the article. They are just dead set on deleting the current one and leaving the header blank, which makes the article ugly.(Ghostexorcist 08:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Ghostexorcist is opinionated and insists on having his way!! He is no academic scholar on Hinduism. Mrinalini

Former heading here, 'Kali Depicted' downgraded for clarity, as the following discussion is the same as the preceding.

Dipendra, Ghost Exorcist and Mrinalini:

The depiction that Ghost Exorcist is so eager to retain might well be from the movie India Jones and the Temple of Doom. I am not sure though whether deleting it is the way to go. Perhaps another portrait with wider currency would be more appropriate.

I deeply respect what Dipendra has to say and would try to get a representation of Bhadra Kali in the South Indian/Sri Lankan tradition for everyone's consideration. The problem is that most prints on the web are copyrighted.

Dipendra - thank you for your thoughtful insights on your talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dipendra2007 I learnt a lot and concur with you.

I hear Mrinalini's insinuation that Ghost Exorcist was perhaps too aggressive and belligerent. Its time perhaps to restate the Indian doctrine of Anekantavada i.e. the many sidedness of reality, something that Ghost Exorcist refuses to accept. The concept of Kali epitomizes that. Live and let live. There should be no petulant intolerance of the newcomer who might have a different perspective. --Dharman Dharmaratnam 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a picture more along the lines of [1]? It shows a depiction that is commonly unseen. Xuchilbara 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The depiction that Ghost Exorcist wants to retain is a valid and common one. We should describe things as they are, and that depiction is an example of the representations of Kali. It has been suggested in another user talk page that non-Hindus may see it as demonic. That may be true but is irrelevant. The purpose of this article is to describe Kali, and not to make her more acceptable to non-believers. However, there is no need to make this picture more prominent than any other picture. I'd say that [2] which is currently in the page much lower down, is a more common representation, and thus more suitable for the top picture.

The picture suggested by Xuchilbara above, is, as suggested, not that common a depiction, and so should not be given pride of place.

Imc 08:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I never once said I was "eager to to retain" the current picture as Dharman Dharmaratnam put it. If people will direct their attentions the header named Please respond, you will see that I opted for the Image:Kaligoddess.jpg just like Imc has suggested. There is no reason that a watered-down, uncommon image of the goddess should be used. The most common depiction of her should be used so people will easily recognize her. I am finally happy that people are starting to discuss the issue instead of deleting the pic like Dipendra2007, MrinaliniB, and Dharman Dharmaratnam. (Ghostexorcist 10:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Former heading, 'Kali Once More' downgraded for clarity, as the following discussion is the same as the preceding.

For the record, I never deleted any picture!

Dipendra, from what I gather, did try to elicit a dicussion. Niranjan and he had a respectful conversation on-line. There were no major textual deletions. The controversy pertained only to the off again on again visual at the top.

In fact, Dipendra had recommended the second illustration that Imc (and later Ghost Exorcist) suggests if one were to follow the discussion trail. I concur with Dipendra and Imc on that particular portrait, which is more mainstream. Or what Xuchilbara suggests.

But there needs to be respect for the views of others. I notice a vehemence in the tone of Ghost Exorcist that is quite unwarranted. There is no "most common depiction" of Kali as Ghost Exorcist seems to think. The visual he insists upon is certainly not conventional! I had never seen it before and its validity can be questioned.

One notes that Mrinalini and Ghost Exorcist are battling it out each removing and then reinstating that particular Steven Spielberg type illustration! Is this Huntington's Clash of Civilizations playing itself out? Regardless, it is hardly exemplary behavior on Wikipedia--Dharman Dharmaratnam 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to create a new header everytime you leave a comment. Your "respectful conversation on-line" took place on your user talk pages and not on the Kali talk page where it belonged. I never once said you deleted textual material from the page. I'm glad that you are finally joining in on the discussion, whether it be attacking me or actually talking about the picture. I don't care. My point is that all editors must discuss any major changes like the deletion of a picture. Welcome to the discussion.

Like I've said many times before, I am in favor of switching the pictures around. Thoughts from other editors? (Ghostexorcist 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

The image has now been removed three times by Mrinalini in the last day, in violation of the three revert rule. Imc 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The only other picture I suggest is this one.It shows her in prime form, w/out using the same

03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

three revert rule for continually deleting the picture from the page. I have reported him to an administrator. On a lighter note, the first picture that Xuchilbara has suggested is not much different from either of the two full sized pics of her on the page. However, it only shows half of her body. And the second one (and I mean no offence whatsoever) looks like a child's drawing. It is in no way detailed enough to be a header photo. (Ghostexorcist

11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I prefer the illustration proposed by Xuchilbara - the one which he/she mentions is in Kali's "prime form'. The other visual recommended by Imc and Dipendra is also good. Why is this such a difficult decision to make? The original depiction that Ghost Exorcist insists upon is not common in the Indic tradition! I do not agree with Ghost Exorcist that the picture suggested by Xuchilbara looks like a child's drawing.

Imc, I am not defending Mrinalini. I do not know her. But both Ghost Exorcist and she have violated the three revert rule, n'est-ce pas? I would urge that the views expressed by several in this discussion trail be taken seriously i.e. that the picture Ghost Exorcist insists upon is not in keeping with tradition.

For future reference, it might be useful to rely on traditional iconography be it from museums, temples or murals (like Kangra and the Rajasthani school). This would avoid controversies of such nature. Right now it is one person's word against the other. --Dharman Dharmaratnam 11:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said time and time again, we can switch the pictures around. However I fail to see a major difference with the current photo, those on the page and that suggest here other than the red background and the eyes. She is still displaying her tongue, wielding her divine sword, holding the head, wearing the garland of heads, etc. Even the "prime form" picture has her displaying her tongue, wielding the sword, holding the head, etc. Is it because she looks somewhat angrier than in the others? All I keep on hearing is the current pic is not traditional, but all of the 'traditional' pictures shown are very similar indeed.

How many times do I have to say that I do not prefer one picture (on the page) over another. We can switch pictures around, there I said it again. Therefore, there is no reason to keep on talking about my "preference". (Ghostexorcist 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Ghost Exorcist dearest

Thank you for the clarification. Then can you please up-load either Xuchilbara's recommended visual or the second one agreed upon by Imc, Dipendra, you and me. That would solve the whole issue. Over to you monsignor! --Dharman Dharmaratnam 11:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a God! Finally, that is what I've been after: discussion and resolvement. This could have been over in 5 min. had not the pic been deleted over and over again.

Once I switch the pics around, I certainly hope no one tries to delete them without first discussing it.(Ghostexorcist 11:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Finally! If you are ok with it, do consider Xuchilbara's excellent recommendation for future use. It might be good to include in the gallery. I liked the Nepalese look of her visual. There are many facets to Kali and that is one. Btw, we have a shared interest in Kung Fu and Sinic studies! --Dharman Dharmaratnam 12:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not upload either pictures presented by Xuchilbara because I don't know their source or what the copyright is on them. If I did, the pics would be "speedily deleted". (Ghostexorcist 11:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I am glad that the image issue is likely to be resolved. Ghost's insistence can be viewed as defamation since the controversial picture is not representative of the Deity. It is intended to malign. (MrinaliniB)

I had a feeling in my gut this was going to happen. Please stop deleting stuff from the page. No one is trying to malign Kali. It is just a representation of her. The article is to be balanced. There is no reason to whitewash the picture just because you don't approve of it. That's it, I'm having this page fully protected! (Ghostexorcist 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I found another similar image here, the on I got can be found here. Xuchilbara 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Xuchilbara:

why not you upload either of the two pictures of Kali to the document -the one that is waist up or the other one beneath the tree or even both - they appear to have the Nepalese touch - in consultation with Ghost Exorcist. These are beautiful visuals. cheers --Dharman Dharmaratnam 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The image upload page says the following:

"Do not upload content with false license declarations. You will be blocked."

Basically, when you upload an image, you have to choose from a long list of tags that declare it an image of a painting, tv / movie / video game screenshot, album cover, DVD / CD cover, Newspaper cliping, Movie / Political poster, ect. (there are many more) . If you tag a copyrighted image as being free to use, you will be blocked.

It continues:

"Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted."

I know that not everyone sticks to this rule. I’ve uploaded images from websites before, but they were either scans from a book, a very famous painting, or something else like that. The above applies to just finding and uploading a random picture without knowing where the original picture came from or (most importantly) who created it. Unless the picture is over 100 years old (this does not include the lifespan of the creator!) and has a verifiable source, random pictures can’t be uploaded. Please go the Image uploading page for more details.

I especially like this one image of Kali suggested by Xuchilbara. However, as I’ve stated before, we don’t’ know the copyright status of it since it comes from a long, uncited index of pictures. The second image can most definitely not be used since it is being painted by request and sold on the internet. This means it is not over 100 years old and the copyright is probably still owned by the artist. According to this page, the artist who painted it is 39 years old and is still alive. (Ghostexorcist 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Xuchilbara:

Could you please indicate the copyright status of the visual of Kali that Ghost Exorcist refers to - i.e. the one of Kali beneath the tree with the Linga in the foreground?--Dharman Dharmaratnam 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the particular artist. [4] I think it might be an older image. I found the same image on a art site, but couldn't find the artist. (yet again) And it might be a reproduction of the original: http://www.artoflegendindia.com/details/PBABC001 [5] But the first link is where I got the image from, not the art place.

Xuchilbara 18:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's some translation of text by Ramprasad Sen, mostly it seems taken from [6]. I don't know if it is ok ot quote in copyright terms, but the quality of its English is terrible, with such gems as;

     O Mother! We are all ashamed of you;
   Do put on Thy garb.

I'm removing it therefore.

(forgot to sign the above; that was me, Imc, on 14 March 2007).

That's what was in the Hindu Goddesses by Kinsley book. The site I found afterwards. I'm not responsible forthe translations of Ramprasad texts. I could find Alt. translations if that'd be better & more appropiate.

Xuchilbara 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of relevant text. I know that Wikipedia is not the place for literary criticism, but that translation is awful (or even funny), with its sloppy mixing of archaisms and modern English. Imc 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Joseph Campbell's lecture on Kundalini Yoga, Kali is associated both with the yoga of war (which is spiritual aspiration on a strictly biological and sociological plane, transcending fear of death to be part of something materially bigger) and also with the yoga of purgation (the purging, casting off or breaking through of the lower spiritual centers and especially logic and the realm of forms). Campbell claimed that the severed head in her hand was that of Brahman, the god who creates forms. This is consistent with this article's claim that the 51-head-necklace represents the 51 characters of Sanskrit script. After recognizing the transcendent in forms, the yogi, with the power of Kali, rejects forms, language, EVEN THE FORMS OF HINDUISM ITSELF, in order to purge his consciousness of all worldly attachments. Kali cuts off her own head to release the yogi from her form as well. Thus, the yogi is on his way to experiencing the ultimate ground of being that is transcendent of forms. Jedmichael 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So what does that have to do with the talk page? If the material is supported by a varifiable source, please feel free to add it to the page. (Ghostexorcist 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Oh, damn, I remember editing the article to include the Tantric (and perhaps the original?) meaning of Kali's tongue, but someone's edited it away and inserted the more popular story of Kali sticking her tongue out in shame. Er... fine, if you want the more patriarchal and "tamed" version. There are several Tantric sources stating that the tongue represents rajas, while the teeth clamp on it, symbolising control through sattvic qualities. There's a chapter in McDermott's Encountering Kali where it's discussed in detail, so it is quite verifiable. I'm editing the article to reflect this.--Snowgrouse 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

i think both views should be supported. As you can see theres diffient traditions of Kali, and the Bengali is quite unlike Tantra. Xuchilbara 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A user put up the "original research" tag without pinpointing where the problem occurred in the article. If people don't know what the problem is, they can't fix it. --Ghostexorcist 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken down the tag. It should be put back up when the problem areas are pinpointed. --Ghostexorcist 18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good on yer mate. The above behaviour is pretty typical of that editor. If you have any probs with her, drag her through mediation, like I'm doing.

Sardaka 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The image of Kālī shows several heads and legs (not talking about the garland of heads)and 10 arms - however I believe this goddess is widely portrayed to have only 1 head and 2 legs - and also the normal 4 arms! Therefore; although the image is quite detailed, it is not the most common depiction of Kali and so could another image be used???

Thanks

If you can find one. Me and some other users found some good pix of her but copyrights were too much so we couldn't add it to wikipedia. Of course, I could always just take a picture of my brass Kali ma statue from India if it poses to be too much of a problem. Xuchilbara 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Kali 003 copy.jpg

How about this image (right) in Mahakali ??? --Redtigerxyz 05:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current picture. Kali is usually depicted as very dark because the first of her followers had dark skin.--ॐJesucristo301 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed all use of the word "goddess" and "god" unless appropriate. Remember, deva!--ॐJesucristo301 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Devi = goddess is the translation given generally in English. While I agree that "goddess" isn't a total right word for it in some cases, it is right in alot of cases and this article needent the arguement concerning the word. Its right in a polytheistic sense as well. yes i know "manifestations of Brahman" but that doesn't refer to every Hindu, especially living n India, so devi = goddess would be right. Xuchilbara 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Devi does not equal goddess. There is only one god in Hinduism. Period. There is no polytheism. Devi would be more accurately translated "angel" but there is no English word that does it justice at all.--ॐJesucristo301 11:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is polytheism in Hinduism. Hindus believe in 33 crore gods!!!! Devi is best translated as "goddess".--Redtigerxyz 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, read the Vedas before you make this kind of comment. "33 crore (sic) gods?" Where did you attain that number? "Devi" is best translated as "Female manifestation of god" but there is no english word for that so we should keep it as "Devi." Here's a website discussing how Hinduism is not polytheistic. [7]--ॐJesucristo301 13:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism can be polytheistic. It refers to a broad range of beliefs in India. Brahman is not a god or God, its "ultimate reality". The deva and devi can be manifestations of Brahman, but "god/dess" is the best english translation for them. Theres not many Hindus that disagree with that. Not too mention the confusion brought to the article if you erase all instances of mentions of gods or goddess.

Hindu has many demoninations, I'm sure there is one demonination that believes in the one god ideal, but not all reflect that. The ancient Vedia religion is considered to be quite polytheistic, and I'm sure if you did your research you could see that Hinduism has polytheistic roots and later ideals are of Brahman etc.

Xuchilbara 16:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no religion called "Kalism" like there is "Shaivism." Devi is more appropriate.--ॐJesucristo301 20:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Theres Shaktism, Mahadevi, (In Mahadevi, Durga and Kali are supreme.) & Kali is very important in Tantra, she is considered the ultimate manifestaion by some and she dominates tantra texts. There may not be "Kalism" but there is defenately movements devoted and aimed towards her.

Xuchilbara 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, is that in those groupings there is more than one devi revered e.g. Mahadevi revering both Kali, Durga, and Lakshmi. All of the religions you mention rever Shakti, not a specific devi.--ॐJesucristo301 00:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out to you that you can rever either or and I know certain people rever Kali over other, such as in tantra. Shivaism revers Shiva as the main deity but not at the exclusion of others. This is the same with Kali. She dominates some texts and is prominant, in which, it is almost like "Kalism". Kali is heavily associated with other goddesses. You can't divorce that from her myth, because after all she sprouted from Parvati or Durga as a slayer of demons. Theres been exclusive Kali worship in the form of devotees.

Xuchilbara 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming the devotee worship gives Kali the right to the title "deity" is innacurate. In Shaivism, Shiva is equated with Brahman. In Vaishnavism, Vishnu is equated with Brahman. Kali is never equated with Brahman and is unworthy of the title of deity in my humble opinion. Kali's legends only prove my point more. Kali is not a self-created being, she sprung forth from Durga, so she is even less worthy of the title.--ॐJesucristo301 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The website link ॐJesucristo301 provided can't be regarded as
   WP:RS
   . Hinduism has sects believed in no God, one God and Many gods. The One God belief does not reflect the outlook of the whole Hindu community.
2. Atleast a thousand books [8] call Kali a "goddess".
3. Atleast a 1000 books relate terms "Devi" and "goddess".[9]--Redtigerxyz 06:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz is right. If you look at the main

Shakta (Shakti worshippers), Devi can mean (Mother) Goddess. Gizza^{Discuss ©}

08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There aren't "1000" books to prove your point, your just doing google searches. Devi is most oftenly translated goddess, but as I have already mentioned Kali is in no way described as a deity. There is no sect of Hinduism that claims Kali is Brahman.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone about assuming good faith, I'm just trying to do what I feel is appropriate in labeling this article.--ॐJesucristo301 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the Tantra section of this wiki "In many sources Kali is praised as the highest reality or greatest of all deities.", the highest rality would refer to Brhaman, the Ultimate Reality. Under that definition Kali like all the other Hindu deities is likewise a manifestation of Brahman. By your definition Durga wouldn't even be a "deity" or a manifestation of Brahman, because Durga was created by the godsto deal with a nasty Asura. Your saying she is not described as a deity or devi, when numerous books, texts, and rituals all support Kali's divinity. She has been worshipped since the Medieval times. Definition of deity - "A deity or god is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings." Kali is under this definition.

Xuchilbara 15:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just google searched "referenced books".

1. Quoting from "Hindu Goddesses: Vision of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition By David R. Kinsley,(who is
   WP:RS) p.116"[10], Many texts and contexts treat Kali as an independent deity. --Redtigerxyz
   16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Published 1843, p.193[11] "the Goddess Kali, the cheif deity of Hindus.......," an older
   WP:RS. --Redtigerxyz
   16:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your not proving anything by saying "In many sources Kali is praised as the highest reality or greatest of all deities." It's contradictory to begin with because it calls all Hindu devas/avatars/etc. "deities." I ask you to give me one branch of Hinduism in which Kali is the supreme reality without weasel words like "In many sources" without citing any!

Redtigerxyz, see above. I want the name of a specific sect.--ॐJesucristo301 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

D.Kinsley p. 122-123 - Hindu Goddesses: Vision of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition By David R. Kinsley:

"Given Kali's intimidating appearance and ghastly habits, it might seem that she would never occupy a central position in Hindu piety, yet she does. She is of central importance in Tantrism particularly left handed Tantrism, and in Bengali Sikta devotionalism. An underlying assumption in Tantric ideology is that reality is the result and expression of the symbiotic interaction of male and female, Lord Shiva and sakti, the quiescent and the dynamic, and other polar opposites that in interaction produce a creative tension. Consequently, goddesses in Tantrism play an important role and are affirmed to be as central to discerning the nature of reality as the male deities are. Although Lord Shiva is usually said to be the source of the Tantras, the source of wisdom and truth, and Parvatl, his spouse, to be the student to whom the scriptures are given, many of the Tantras emphasize the fact that it is sakti that pervades reality with her power, might, and vitality and that it is she (understood in personified form to be Pirvati, Kall, and other goddesses) who is immediately present to the adept and whose presence and being underlie his own being. For the Tantric adept it is her vitality that is sought through various techniques aimed at spiritual transformation; thus it is she who is affirmed as the dominant and primary reality.

[...]

The Nigama-kalpataru and the Picchila-tantra declare that of all mantras Kali's is the greatest. The yogini-tantra, the Kamakhya-tantra, and the Niruttara-tantra all proclaim Kali the greatest of the vidyas (the manifestations of the Mahadevi, the "great goddess") or divinity itself; indeed, they declare her to be the essence or own form (svarupa) of the Mahadevi. The Kamada-tantra states unequivocally that she is attributeless, neither male nor female, sinless, the imperishable saccidananda (being, consciousness, and bliss), brahman itself. In the Mahanirvana-tantra, too. Kali is one of the most common epithets for the primordial sakti and in one passage Lord Shiva praises her as follows:

'At the dissolution of things, it is Kala [Time] Who will devour all, and by reason of this He is called Mahakala [an epithet of Lord Shiva), and since Thou devourest Mahakala Himself, it is Thou who art the Supreme Primordial Kalika. Because Thou devourest Kala, Thou art Kali, the original form of all things, and because Thou art the Origin of and devourest all things Thou art called the Adya [primordial Kali. Resuming after Dissolution Thine own form, dark and formless, Thou alone remainest as One ineffable and inconceivable. Though having a form, yet art Thou formless; though Thyself without beginning, multiform by the power of Maya, Thou art the Beginning of all, Creatrix, Protectress, and Destructress that Thou art.'"Chapter on Kali from the book

Have you actually read Kali's wiki page?

Xuchilbara 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We've already solved this issue...--ॐJesucristo301 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maha Kali is the presiding deity of the first chapter of the Devi Mahatmya. She is considered to be the ultimate reality. Again I have not seen the ten armed Kali mentioned as Dasa Maha Vidya Kali in any book. I will be changing the section regarding this.

Please see the image. The Dhyana sloka is "Ghatkam Chakra gadeshu ...". Mahakali in Devi Mahatmya is not the consort of any one.

This Mahakali is

"Wielding in her hand the sword, discuss, mace, arrow, bow, iron club, trident, sling, human head, and conch, she has three eyes and ornaments decked on all her limbs. She shines like a blue stone and has ten faces and ten feet. That Mahakali I worship, whom the lotus born Brahma lauded in order to slay Madhu and Kaitaba when Hari was asleep.

-S. Sankaranarayanan. Devi Mahatmya.

Thanks.--Sankarrukku 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My additions have been undone. Note to keep off this article.--Sankarrukku 05:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO the mantras need not be mentioned. Since there are more than 100 Mantras for the worship of Kali, we may always find some contributor adding one more Mantra.--Sankarrukku 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As always, a constant debate on Wikipedia.I ask, why does Kali have her stories under "mythology," but Jesus of Nazareth has "life, stories, and teachings?"--ॐJesucristo301 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess it's just easier for people to believe in carpenter with a lot of common sense than to believe in a four-armed woman who likes drinking blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not050 (talk • contribs)

Mythology box explains why kali has "mythology". --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC) {{Myth box}}

Okay, I now understand the mythology label, but your comment was pretty offensive. --ॐJesucristo301 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What's offensive? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not written "I don't know. I guess it's just easier for people to believe in carpenter with a lot of common sense than to believe in a four-armed woman who likes drinking blood." Check history.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a Kali in Neopaganism/New age more apporpiate than "the west"? :-/ Xuchilbara 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Change it if you like.--Redtigerxyz 11:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture is originally from here, I believe, and I'm not sure if it's free. Could someone check on this? 83.104.37.31 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: the terms of use are: "Permission to use these images on a personal, not-for-profit Web site may be obtained by writing me directly, whereupon I will give you the terms of usage." [12] --83.104.37.31 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been removed now. 83.104.37.31 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

<spam removed>

Sorry, but telling us to watch a youtube link is advertising and spamming (See

04:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi I will be reviewing this article.Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Fail Criteria

1. Many
   WP:RS
   used
2. NPOV, not written from POV of adherents
3. No banners
4. No recent edit wars
5. Not CE

GA Criteria

here

for criteria)

• 1 It is reasonably well written.

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is great and MOS is followed sufficiently for GA purposes.

• 2 It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

Sufficient number of citations for article size (43KB), citation required in disputed statement on Shiva in Kali iconography subsection.

• 3 It is broad in its coverage.

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

Major aspsects of the subject convered across several mythologies and cultures, well focused on Kali

• 4 It follows the
  neutral point of view
  policy.

1. a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Written from neutral POV not from adherent's POV.

• 6 It is stable.

1. 

Occasional vandalism by AnonIP's, article has expanded and improved alot compared to 2006 version.

• 7 It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

1. a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   ):

12 images, relevant and add to article, tagged and captioned, see recommendations

• 8 Overall:

1. a Pass/Fail: Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Following implementation of recommendations (see below) the article passes all 7

WP:GACR. On a personall note I remember visiting this article back in early 07 and it has really blossomed since that time. Well done to all.Xenovatis (talk

) 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations needed to pass

• Please provide citation requested in the Shiva in Kali iconography subsection. Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove POV line :"However, the symbolism of the above mentioned theological perspective is often seen as antiquated and misogynistic^{[citation needed]}."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply.Xenovatis (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Further recommendations

• Consider moving images to Wikimedia commons if thinking about FA nomination
• Consider moving the image in the Mahakali form subsection and the image in Shiva in Kali iconography section so that they do not overlapp and bunch up the text, per MOS

Did that myself.Xenovatis (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consider filling in some of the redlinks Xenovatis (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Article not formed for Sumbha-Nisumbha. All other red links eliminated.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consider adding information on some of the peripheral cults that are nevertheless often associated with the Deva, like the Thugee etc.Xenovatis (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Nominator is allready reviewing another article for GA so no need to recommend that.Xenovatis (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Kottravai...

This page from the site of an indian temple, located in

reliable" though... regardless of the assertion that a citation is needed, "Kottravi" is certainly known to be kali-like / sharing similar origins, and is arguably blood-thirsty as well. --Kuzetsa (talk

) 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa crap, as per WP:Plagiarism I have changed template to "copypaste" (instead of "fact" or whatever was previously currently there) --- reason: except for "literatureq billy" the text is verbatim...

...continued: Side note, {{copypaste|{{subst:date}}|section|url=http://matabhimakali.com/origin-mythology.html}} would generate a HUGE infobox / eyesore. Not sure if / where that should be placed within the article. --Kuzetsa (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, it's far worse than I initially realized... seems that the bulk of the "origin" section is a re-arranged version of the same content found at (what I suspect to be) the original source -- feel free to check copyscape if you don't want to manually sort this mess out. --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Commented the content out. Will rewrite when i am free, using Kinsley book. I am busy with a FAC right now. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• You left some... in fact "Kali appears in the Mundaka Upanishad (section 1, chapter 2, verse 4)..." is from http://matabhimakali.com/origin-mythology.html too! --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean a "featured article canidate".... err... okay, have fun with that. Whenever you get a chance, what on earth is this "kinsley book" you are wanting to use as a "bandaid" (figuratively speaking)? And for that matter, why rewrite / reword disputed contant rather than just removing it (that's another bandaid in my opinion)... My real concern is how apropriate / merit / virtueous (ethical? eh, I'm not too good at conjugating certain words) of the final resulting "origin" section for this article, and if a version containing said "origin" section still qualifies as a "good article" ? --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

found at (what I suspect to be) the original source

Actually it's anyone's guess what the original source is. Try Googling "goddess, but as the black tongue" and you get dozens of hits. Whatever, it's been indiscriminately copied around, making the source copyright and reliability dubious. Better to write from scratch from sources of agreed reliability, like a third-party book. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "REWORD", I said "REWRITE". Will write from scratch taking references from "David Kinsley, Hindu Goddesses: Vision of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Traditions". I had not written the Origins part. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, a book by "David Kinsley" is embarrassingly logical (just now spotted multiple citations in the article). Sadly, I just checked the online catalog for the local libraries in the county I currently live in. Certainly aren't any books by David Kinsley here. (Wishing I lived in a larger metropolitan area / bigger city again) --Kuzetsa (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin

(reference version of the disputed content)

Kali appears in the

Rig Veda

, in the form of a goddess named Raatri. Raatri is considered to be the prototype of both Durga and Kali.

In the Sangam era, circa 200BCE–200CE, of Tamilakam, a Kali-like bloodthirsty goddess named Kottravai appears in the literature of the period. Like Kali she has dishevelled hair, inspires fear in those who approach her and feasts on battlegrounds littered with the dead.

It was the composition of the

Kalinjar

). However this account is disputed because the legend was of later origin.

The Kalika Purana a work of late ninth or early tenth century, is one of the Upapuranas. The Kalika Purana mainly describes different manifestations of the Goddess, gives their iconographic details, mounts, and weapons. It also provides ritual procedures of worshipping Kalika.http://matabhimakali.com/origin-mythology.html

Mythology and What it Means

Kali is obviously a representation of tribal woman, and through time we see a metaphysical shaping of man to his society by the presented writings and symbols; what is ended is the outsider shown by the death wreath of skulls around the neck (in one statement 52 skulls), while what is loved is the mistress who brings the future as indicated in the writings about Kali. This is part of the cycle of life; birth, life and death that repeats, but here the emphesis is in death we see the demon skulls with the sword. The problem here is the people who follow this false god created a symbol idol, and what happens is in the manifestation of the false god into the human realm is we see society placing their contemporary values into it. Even in Hollywood of the movie industry we see Aphrodite recreated for the television series Valentine, and when the false gods are made manifest in any form it becomes realized the ideal dreams of current society into that symbol, and for entertainment they often add a pantheon of drama with a pageant of drama that also comes form contemporary society; and here in Kali we see the mother symbol with death to the demons that in mythology are the outsiders or death to the defined evil: the symbol means by death to the defined enemy we see eternal life as the mistress is also defined. Our sweetest name is our own, and it transcends our identity until in our self love we go blind to our own identity, including blind to the sins of our religious identity; but we are openly critical of outsiders. Hindu society is vicious to any outsider and even dangerous for Christians, because what was learned is the symbol; and like a hypnotic suggestion, in their blind self love, we see the society act it out for those who learned the symbol as part of their religion: death to the demons that is non-Hindu while loving it as the mother that transcends time (this makes Hindu society supreme in their religion). The mother role is seen in everyday society, and in the cycle of life we see the birth, life, and death; but always there is "mother"; but the skulls really means something as we see it defined to remove demons (outsiders and even the spirit of outsiders--as in remove outside ideas): the other interpretation should be birth defeats death, but we see no birth here, we see death being a trait of Kali with a wreath of skulls and a sword, with the sword that is the local symbol of enforcement of their belief including into death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.221.223 (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This posting in this discussion shows a complete lack of understanding of Hindu symbolism, of the history of Kali, and a complete lack of respect for any religion other than the person's own, not to mention blatant racism. Hindu society is NOT "vicious to any outsider" nor is it "dangerous for Christians." The sword is not a symbol of enforcement of belief, nor is death the emphasis of Kali's symbolism. Anyone who has spent any time studying the texts and the traditions of West Bengal - where Kali is a primary goddess - would know that.

talk

) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This person obviously does not know about the history of European colonialism and inquisition: Slavery, diseases, exploitation & death to millions of non-christians by christians and the conquest & vandalism of many great civilazations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.201.167 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

Why is the second Indiana Jones movie not mentioned in the "Film References" section? Kali, or rather the thugee cult which worships Kali, are the antagonists in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.99.165 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kāḷī

Just noting that the name should be "Kāḷī", where the "l" actually "ḷ" (equivalent to the Sanskrit letter: ळ instead of ল). Since Hindi does not have the sound "ळ", it has been written incorrectly in this article. Please amend the mistake, thankyou.Jaimaataa (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a ল, Sanskrit alphabet has no ळ. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The ळ is from Vedic Sanskrit (not present in medieval Sanskrit, though it is present in Rg Veda). In any case, this suggestion to change the spelling is incorrect. Kālī's name is spelled as such in all the Tantras, the Puranas, etc.

talk

) 18:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article title should be Kali, as Wikipedia naming conventions are clear that we use the most common English form of names. I don't know who put it at this awful name and why the page is locked from being moved, but this needs to be fixed. DreamGuy (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New film reference

Kali is mentioned and displayed in statue form in the movie The League of Extraordinary Gentleman. Captain Nemo is shown worshipping her, just before he closes the door to his room. 68.63.209.192 (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)ComicMovieWatcher

Kali is mentioned in several films, but films are fictional and not integral to her identity, so an

WP:UNDUE in this article.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk

18:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Kālī → Kali — The transliteration "Kali" is commonly used, even in the article itself. Hekerui (talk

) 20:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support as usage. The more exact transliteration, like the Sanskrit, should of course stay in the header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Pmanderson - Epson291 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. No problem here, since Kali already redirects here. That's the most common spelling in English. Jafeluv (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I've also started a

sign

20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you guys know how excellent this article on Kali is. Even comments are included, and the different, local traditions are explained. This is essential to the understanding of Hinduism. Gods and Goddesses relate very much to their localities and their temples as this is often done in Christianity, particularly in catholicism. Good work! ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterluzei (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kali - A Few more Observations

The word Kali probably stems from the word 'Kal' meaning 'Time'. 'Kali' is probably the feminine rendition of the masculine word 'Kal'. Assuming this is the case, then the Goddess, who is also known as Mahakali, is one who represents the notion of 'being beyond Time', which may also account for the colour in which she is generally depicted. Associated with this is the word "Shyama', which refers to a darkish-blue colour. It is interesting to note that aside from the Goddess Kali, Krishna and Shiva are also depicted in the same colour. One interpretation of the 'dark' rendition of the Goddess is probably related to her being beyond Time, or as one who cuts the 'bounds of Time'.

It would be incorrect to attribute Death to Kali, though a strong case for her representing 'destruction' may be made. Care should be taken to note that this 'destruction' is the destruction of Time, which is also why her most commonly known consort is Shiva. In this sense Kali repesents the potential for 'birth', rather than an affirmation of 'Death'.

Quadruped (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment shows a bit of lack of understanding of the Sanskrit. Kali comes from Kala which primarily means "black" or "dark." However, Kala also means time. Shiva is not depicted as black - he is depicted as white, covered in ash, with a blue throat (from drinking poison which was separated from amrita in the churning of the ocean of milk).

talk

) 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@Shakta Scholar I really don't know if you have spent enough time in India and if you are aware of the fact that the Andhra Kings once had tremendous influence in Bengal,it was during this period the color of the goddesses changed from darkish blue to black.Down south (esp equatorial regions)including Andhra all the Hindu gods right from Lord Krishna to Lord Shiva are painted in black and worshiped by a vast majority the tradition still continues. In fact in THE place where i stay even Lord Hanuman in the Hanuman temple is completely black.So if we go the southern way all the gods will be denoted by black color. I totally agree with Quadruped that Shyama refers to darkish blue color.

I have lived in India, in various locations. There are certainly regional variations from North to South, East to West, and a variety of forms of Shiva which depict him in various colours; in general, though, the generalized form of Shiva - particularly when paired with Kali - is depicted as white, because he is covered in ash. Of course Bhairava is typically depicted as black, and Maha Kaleshwar is often depicted as black, etc. There is a variety of iconography accompanying different forms of Shiva. However, this belongs in the article on Shiva and is less relevant to a discussion on Kali.

talk

) 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Latter section "In New Age and Neopaganism"

The quotation is a gratuitous swipe at feminists, neopagans and the new age movement. That it is a quote does not change the fact that it is opinion not substantiated by any fact listed here. Also, the heavy ellipses point to it being taken out of context. Recommend ending the section at "accusations of cultural misappropriation" and leaving the cite. Also, the heading should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hearthmoon (talk • contribs) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a swipe, but not a gratuitous one. Rachel Fell Mcdermott is a contemporary religious scholar who has written a book on contemporary Kali worship. She is thus a good source. If you would like to change the article, I suggest that you find an equally appropriate source to cite. — goethean ॐ 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it could be more balanced, considering there are quite a few Westerners drawn to genuine Kali worship who aren't divorcing her form her Hindu contexts and are very conscious of all the problems involved. The quote makes it seem like all Westerners are doing it wrong, period. McDermott states in Kali's New Frontiers (one of the essays in Encountering Kali) that from the Nineties onwards, she finds that in various Internet circles, there's a trend towards thinking that "cross-cultural borrowing is appropriate and a natural by-product of religious globalization--although such borrowing ought to be done responsibly and self-consciously. If some Kali enthusiasts, therefore, careen ahead, reveling in a goddess of power and sex, many others, particularily since the early 1990s, have decided to reconsider their theological trajectories. These, whether of South Asian descent or not, are endeavoring to rein in what they perceive as excesses of feminist and New Age interpretations of the Goddess by choosing to be informed by, moved by, an Indian view of her character." Would this quote help at all in balancing out the various viewpoints on the matter?--Snowgrouse (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" is far too bland a description. I find this section to be wholly unbalanced (it could have been written by any Evangelical) and, being based on a single "scholarly" opinion, to be utterly too thin in citation to warrant being included here. Mcdermott's opinion also appears to reveal a great deal of "politically correct" grandstanding, in which Western use of Eastern material is equated to cultural colonialism or cultural imperialism, but historical Eastern use of materials from other Eastern or Western cultures is utterly unquestioned, indeed, untouchable. (As an example, I would refer here to such things as the fact that Indian Buddhism, and its concept and portrayal of the Buddha, was adopted and adapted into different, local interpretations throughout the East [China, Japan, et al.]—yet no charges of "cultural misappropriation" are ever raised about this: nor, because of political correctness, can they be.) Mcdermott seems to be in the forefront of the "politically correct" imposition of those horribly overextended, farcical "intellectual property" concepts and precepts that have come to define the cultural and legal enervation and enfeeblement of current Western enterprise.

This section deserves no more than a footnote that connects to the WP entry for alleged "cultural misappropriation". Its full inclusion in the article means that the article cannot, and must not be listed as a "good article" because it fails item "2." (being obviously non-neutral) under "Quickfails" for that designation.Polemyx (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are the Thuggee?

as discussed here, Thuggee#Religion_and_Thuggee worship of Kali played a big role in the Thuggee movement. And not a single mention of this fact... 76.24.104.52 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Thagi are largely fictionalized Victorian fantasy. In any case, any Thagi worship of Kali is irrelevant to the goddess in terms of her iconography, historical development, etc. Should we mention in Jesus's article that he is worshipped by the Ku Klux Klan? In Kali's cultural context in India, Thagi worship isn't even a blip on the radar.

talk

) 19:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm going to have to dig through my books and find some references, Tuggee's were/are more integral to Kali than you seem to realize. While a romanticism did take place, it does not make the facts less real or less important. The Klan are just a bunch of intolerant Christians, the Tuggees worship/ed Kali in a very specific manner, which is separate from common folk traditions. Shakta Devotee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.100.75 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. Kali may have been important to the (largely fictional, at least as they exist in the popular imagination) Thagi, but that doesn't mean the Thagi were important to Kali, to her development, and so on. They were not.

talk

) 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They were, though, at least to the development of the Western concept of Kali. As unfortunate as it is. Many, many 19th and 20th century sources portray her as the goddess of the Thuggee cult, because that's how she was mostly known to the English--through horror stories about the Thuggee and their bloodthirsty goddess. Whether the stories were exaggerated doesn't, sadly, matter--that's how she shows up in a lot of Western literature and cinema until fairly recent times. Those were my first contact with her when growing up in the Eighties, and I suspect they were that to many Westerners until recently. The best thing to do would be to mention the Thuggee connection while also remaining sober about the Victorian horror fantasies and mentioning how exaggerated they were. And how, well, they were just one example of Kali worshippers even if the Victorians painted this as the only image of Kali worship. --Snowgrouse (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but developments in "the Western concept of Kali" don't necessarily bear mentioning here. This isn't a biography of a living person but an article on a diety within Hinduism. I just don't see why other cultures' view of that diety, particularly views that emerged solely from the context of other religious traditions, should be included automatically. It's one thing if a figure appears within multiple religious traditions such as how Jesus appears within Islamic teachings or Buddha appears within Hindu teachings, but when we are only talking about another culture or religion's attack or dubious characterizations of a figure that is very much not a figure within that cultural or religious tradition I don't think it should be included. It's not as though Kali is a figure within Christianity, and it's not as though Western distoritions of Kali are significant to the overall study of Kali or Hinduism. And just like there isn't a portion of Islam's article about Al Qaeda or a portion of Christianity's article about Torquemada, there shouldn't be a portion of this article about the Thagi or how they are perceived by other cultures. I could see sub articles about the Thagi or Western treatments of other dieties within articles on colonialism, but this article should be focussed on Hindu scriptures, teachings, and beliefs concerning Kali. Western views of the Thagi or Kali really are not significant within that context.Jdlund (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Article split

Also, methinks the iconography section is pretty interesting but deserves its own article. It seems disproportionately long. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the iconography sections could be moved to a new article. Doing so would encourage additions to the history (development) section of to this already long article. Accordingly, I have place a template on that section. — goethean ॐ 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the article is just 26 KB (readable prose). Not too long, well below the 32 KB ideal (

WP:SIZE). Iconography is a very important aspect of a Hindu deity and needs a detailed section, especially for a complex deity like Kali, where symbolism is a big part of Iconography. Also note FA Ganesha also has a long Iconography section. Additions to Development and the Iconography section are mutually exclusive. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk

15:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article really needs to be split. It's not that long, and is certainly readable as-is. It would have to have a whole lot more information in order to be split up. I am, however, going to be working on strengthening the article over the next few months, because there are a lot of weak points with inadequate references, too much opinion, not enough detail, etc. 67.164.1.100 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Veneration

I have to say this is a pretty poor article. The iconography section is incredibly long, but there is no information at all about how and where Kali is particularly venerated, and the evolution of her worship over time. One would have thought that a religion as uncentralised as hinduism would mean that there was a wealth of useful pertinent information on this topic.

BNS 58.8.186.68 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has an "edit button", so there is nothing stopping you from adding information about her veneration. I look forward to what you come up with. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Should We Mention This in the Article?

Killing For "Mother" Kali from Time Magazine:

Human sacrifice has always been an anomaly in India. Even 200 years ago, when a boy was killed every day at a Kali temple in Calcutta, blood cults were at odds with a benign Hindu spiritualism that celebrates abstinence and vegetarianism. But Kali is different. A ferocious slayer of evil in Hindu mythology, the goddess is said to have an insatiable appetite for blood. With the law on killing people more strictly enforced today, ersatz substitutes now stand in for humans when sacrifice is required. Most Kali temples have settled on large pumpkins to represent a human body; other followers slit the throats of two-meter-tall human effigies made of flour, or of animals such as goats.

Hokie Tech (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should mention it, any article on Kali that does not include sacrifice is woefully inadequate. Both the actual, literal sacrifices to her (hello, Dakshinkali is a major Kali temple in Nepal, and you literally stand in blood, so many are the chickens and goats whose blood goes to honour Mata Kali) and the more metaphorical, devotional aspects of sacrifice to her (many, though not all of them, more modern). That said, good luck adding it in - it will be removed soon after you put it there. Just look at the argument about the Thuggee. They venerated (among others) Kali, but we can't mention them here, because to mention them would be to somehow advocate (???) the British racist use of the Thuggee (or that's what we're told on this page). So no, we can't have any mention of blood on Kali's page. Remember the motto of Wikipedia: "never offend anyone, unless everyone agrees that we should offend them" (why a Kali devotee would be offended that Kali desires blood is beyond me, of course, I suspect it's squeamish Westerners who are really the one's worried about this) 69.43.88.2 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think its a hokey distortion to want to downplay the blood sacrifice role. Generally speaking blood sacrifices arent't that common, HOWEVER articles like the on above and many, many, many others have simply sensationalized certain aspects of Hinduism and foisted them upon an unintelligent/uneducated society who have generally gobbled it up as the word of God and therefore distorted what Sanatan Dharma is to the practitioners. Human sacrifices have never occurred at Kalighat. Maybe in the cremation grounds or abandoned temples around the area, but its not recorded in the temple history. If cultural distortion had only been recent in practice, there would be room for dialogue between groups about perspectives on each others cultures, but (and yes I already see you rolling your eyes) the British codified the use of native literature and materials to subjugate the population, make them lose faith in their culture and ultimately adopt a "Western/Civilized" way of life. I completely agree with the above commentors that Thagis should not be included in the article with Kali, it plays no role in the development of the goddess and her worship in mainstream Hinduism (within the 10 philosophical schools). Aside from British sources there is no other real reliable evidence for the existence of an organized cult like the Thagis or for Thug Behram. The more than likely possibility is a sensationalist British media pieced together a dogs mess of folk stories, xenophobia and the countless unsolved highway murders by bandits and dacoits.142.59.203.143 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Rajimus123

It is pretty extreme to call the 2002 article in Time magazine as having "sensationalized certain aspects of Hinduism and foisted them upon an unintelligent/uneducated society" since Time is regarded as a generally

reliable source. This article, to a Western reader familiar with depictions of Kali in movies and fiction, seems to be a one-sided presentation. The perception of and depiction of Kali in Europe and America should be included, even if it offends worshippers of Kali. Edison (talk

) 09:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete

I consider this article incomplete without a discussion of the literature on Kali's historic/prehistoric origins, rather than her mythological origins. What do scholars say her origin was? Was she a deity worshiped widely between various indigenous peoples in the subcontinent, and later incorporated into a full fledged Hinduism? How much evidence do we have on the subject, archaeologically and culturally speaking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.56.129 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Should this be worked into the Article somehow?

URL: [13]

"Hearing of these feats, the Raja of the country sent for him and took him into his service; but here also he caused trouble. He insisted on being treated with deference. Going up to the highest officials he would tell them not to twist their moustaches at him, and knock them down. On the throne in the palace when the Raja was absent a pair of the Raja's shoes was placed and every one who passed by had to salaam to these. This our hero flatly refused to do. In fact he became such a nuisance that he was promised that he would be given his pay regularly if he would only stay away from the palace. After this he spent his days in idleness and by night he used to go to the shore and disport himself in the sea.

One night the goddess Kali came to the Raja's palace and knocked at the gate: but no one would come to open it. Just then the prince came back from bathing in the sea. Seeing him, Kali Ma, said that she was so hungry that she must eat him, though she had intended to eat the people in the palace. She, however, promised him that though eaten he should be born again. The boy agreed to form a meal for the goddess on these terms and was accordingly eaten. Afterwards gaining admission to the palace Kali Ma ate up everyone in it except the Raja's daughter. Then our hero was born again and marrying the Raja's daughter succeeded to the kingdom, and lived happily ever after."

I mean, here is a fairly important Santal Pargana tale in which she plays a key role in the ending. So, perhaps the Article on her could somehow refer to this.

As an interesting side note, I'll point out that the rest of the people were not to be reborn, only the (somewhat of a jerk) protagonist. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many mythical stories about Kali in Bengal. Mangala Kavyas contain many stories. Hundreds of them. We can not possible incorporate all these into this article.Sankarrukku (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be countless hundreds of mythical tales, but only 185 of them, most of which do not mention Kali (or at least most don't mention her name), were notable enough to be included in Folklore of the Santal Parganas by Cecil Henry Bompas. In fact, the ending I copied above belongs to 1 of only 2 tales in that entire compilation that actually mention her name, and the other mentions her only very briefly when a character is swearing an oath by her.

So, doesn't it yield notability that this tale both includes Kali as a key character and is included in such a famous compilation, even without one aspect or the other being notable alone? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday was Vipad Tharini Kali Puja celebrated through out Bengal. There is a legend associated with it. But it has not drawn the attention of any western writer. Does it mean that this is not important? No. It is important to understand how Kali is viewed by the general population of Bengal and how she is associated with many aspects of the life of an average Bengali. I can quote other Pujas like Palaharini Kali Puja. These show how Kali is viewed as the Universal mother and a bestower of riches and prosperity in general. But this aspect does not come through in this article.

Than that is the difference between theory and practice. This puzzles many western visitors.

May be we could have an article for the legends and Pujas of Kali. But inclusion of these in the main article may not be justified. Sankarrukku (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

She's supposed to be a Universal Mother, yes, but what of Kali as an eater? Apart from the concept of her bestowing riches, there is also the notion that the rest of us are food for our Mother. She ate the prince in the story I quoted, and although he was reborn, she also ate the people in the palace who were not to be reborn. Does that occur in most of the other stories as well? I've also read different degrees of that, some where she simply eats some other beings, some where she eventually eats everyone else after a temporary afterlife, and yet another concept of her as "great female, eater of males." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed this mess:

One of the most well respected author Dr. David Frawley, also known as Vāmdeva Shāstri, has explained the meaning of Beeja Mantra of Mā (Mother) Kāli in a lucid manner. The mantra is

"AUM AIM HREEM KLEEM CHAMUNDAYE VICHCHE SWAHA |" Usually this mantra is sung during Bali or animal slaughter. But it has a dominating knowledge aspect to it, which is now very well understood in various world literatures.

Aum — Prayer; Aim — Symbolic of knowledge by Goddess Saraswati; Hreem — Symbolism of transformation; Kleem — Symbolism of confidence or strength; Chamundaye Vichche — Decapitation (Considered as fall of EGO) and Swaha — Sacrifice or Yajna prayer.

This interpretation states that Goddess Kāli through knowledge brings transformation in a devotee by excising the Ego, and then blesses the devotee with enormous strength and confidence.

So by this interpretation, animal slaughter is not required for prayering Goddess Kali as Dravya Yajna (material sacrifice). Prayers can be offered to Goddess Kali through Pure Knowledge or Gyan Yajna that is EGO sacrifice.

It is badly spelled, obviously original research, and generally bad.69.43.88.2 (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Kali Poem

What do you think of adding the text of the Vivekananda Poem "Kali the Mother"? [In Search of God and other Poems,

ISBN 81-85301-274 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum] DaleSteinhauser (talk

) 01:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC) DaleSteinhauser

Strong objection

The article, as read today, i.e. 13-08-2013 version says:
One South Indian tradition tells of a dance contest between Shiva and Kali. After defeating the two demons Sumbha and Nisumbha, Kali takes up residence in the forest of Thiruvalankadu or Thiruvalangadu. She terrorizes the surrounding area with her fierce disruptive nature. One of Shiva's devotees becomes distracted while performing austerities, and asks Shiva to rid the forest of the destructive goddess. When Shiva arrives, Kali threatens him, claiming the territory as her own. Shiva challenges Kali to a dance contest; both of them dance and Kali matches Shiva in every step that he takes until Shiva takes the "Urdhalinga" step in which the genitals are exposed.[31] Kali refuses to perform this step as she is a woman and reduces her disruptive acts in the forest. Interestingly enough, this legend in reality doesn't match with the contemporary image of Kali, who dances naked on her husband's chest.[32]
Here the reference 31 says some wrong story about the Goddess Kali, that is too shameless to talk about the Kali & the Shiva. The reference quoted doesn't at all tells anything about this. Request earliest removal of the lines or else cite the proper & true reference. --

talk

) 10:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

English pronunciation

There are two IPA at the article. As I understand IPA (

Help:IPA for Sanskrit), the second one seems accurate. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk

13:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The first transcription respells the English word, the second one respells the Sanskrit word. Both are correct. They are also similar to each other, but nevertheless both are needed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that the English pronunciation is different from the Sanskrit one? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Due to '

means "either ɪ or iː"). In any case, the question of whether they are pronounced the same is irrelevant. Even if they were pronounced exactly the same (which is not the case), we should still include both of them; this is common Wikipedia practice. See also this discussion. --Omnipaedista (talk

) 14:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Each transcription leads to a different IPA help-page which helps the reader identify the language and familiarize themselves with the language-specific conventions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Kali human sacrifice

What about human sacrifice to Kali, which is still current? I can see no mention here. Zezen (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Thuggee's either, or of Kali as the goddess of death and destruction. Nor is there any reference to modern cultural representations - such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which shows Kali worshippers in a very bad light).Royalcourtier (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For a supposedly Good Article, this is still lacking in sources and fails to mention some essential perceptions of Kali as a malevolent figure. I am surprised it passed evaluation. Any ideas for sources to add? Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add any content that you find that can be reliably sourced. Finding sources that speak to perception in an NPOV way can be difficult. Why did it pass evaluation? It meets the criteria. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems an example of an article which has been polished clear of any material, regardless of it coming from

the neutral point of view desired in Wikipedia articles. American and European readers who are not devotees of Kali will wonder if this is a different Kali from the one they have read about or seen depicted. A proper article would discuss the negative presentations as well, just as an article about Christianity should include religious wars and the Inquisition, or an article about Islam should include radical Islam. Edison (talk

) 09:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mahakali

This article should be immediately merged with mahakali and need massive copy editing in order to avoid confusion Pavanai45 (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to merge mahakali into this article, actually. AD64 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@AD64 That too is OK. Two article for one Kali is not good.Pavanai45 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I truly think we need more conversation about this though. A few years ago, it was suggested that each of the different forms of Kali receive their own entry on Wikipedia, especially from a Shakta point of view. I actually agree with this. To that end, a separate entry for Mahakali, Dakshinkali, etc, might be another way to go. Before any shifts are made in this prominent and important article, I suggest we have more community conversation first. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Having different pages for the different forms of KALI may be confusing for readers who are not familiar with the topic. Mostly people get confused with who is Kali - whether it is Mahakali or Dakshinkali or simply - Kali etc . Also the wiki links from other pages may direct to any of these pages and people may get confused. In my opinion the entire data regarding Kali should come into one page and be concise in nature regarding the forms of Kali, since there is not much data available regarding the multiple forms of Kali. Pavanai45 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Mahakali is a distinct goddess in the Devi Mahatmya and recognized pas one of the three primary manifestations of
  WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with articles on distinct forms. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk
  12:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Even for those who see Mahakali and Kali as one and the same, they are still worthy of separate treatment, just as
  Dakshinamurthy, Tripurantaka are all treated separately. Keep this as summary style, as Redtigerxyz points out. First Light (talk
  ) 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support When people search for Kali, often they want to know about the Tantric Kali, the wife of Mahakala as explained in Tantras. Mahakali is the correct word to indicate the Tantric deity. Please see the below section for detailed explanation. Pavanai45 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral Tough case. I think trying to set a precedent on whether they are the same Goddess is not the best way to deal with this. I think disambiguation may be the best option. Disambiguation at the top with topic Kali and Mahakali, as well as notes in the lead that send people to the other article if someone would like to look at it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• "oppose" ThaneFreedomScholar —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits conflicts

Recent edits made by me is reverted by

User:UserK

and i am reverting his edits to my version. Why , certainly there exists grave mistakes in the article and it has to be rectified.

Kali is certainly not the wife of

WP:V

policy. I simply suspect some references are simply copy pasted from somewhere else

The article itself was rearranged for better understanding about Kali and her forms and worship. There exists a lot of junk datas which is absolute not suited for an encyclopedic article . All this has to be rectified, so i already reverted the edits of

) 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Tantric Visions of the Divine Feminine: The Ten Mahāvidyās By David R. Kinsley is explicit in connecting Parvati to Kali (p. 73). Also, Shiva in various forms is associated with the consort of the Mahavidyas, including Kali (p. 45). pp. 81-2 note Kali's association as consort of Kali; Shiva is subordinate in her iconography and she is depicted astride him. This whole assertion of Mahakala, not Shiva seen in Kali's iconography is unsupported by

WP:RS. Mahakala is considered as a manifestation of Shiva; when he is mentioned in Kali's iconography. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk

12:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Pavanai45, Re: "KALI IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH DURGA. DURGA IS ANOTHER HINDU DEITY." Of course Kali is associated with Durga. In her most well known appearance, in the Devi Mahatmya, "the goddess Kālī springs from her [Durga's] forehead." (Kinsley, p. 118, Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition) It's hard to be more associated than that. Kali is also shown at times in sexual union with Shiva, and in other ways, such as the dance contest between the two and her foot on Shiva's chest. Kinsley (p. 116) goes as far as to call Her Shiva's wife and consort: "When she is associated with a god, however, it is almost always Śiva. As his consort, wife, or associate, Kālī often plays the role of inciting him to wild behavior." Kinsley is a reliable source. First Light (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I support keeping the tags pointing out all of the shoddy references and essayish material. This left being a Good Article a long time ago. First Light (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The 5 fundamental deity's of Hinduism are Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver), Shiva - some times called Rudra (Rudra is the correct word as per authentic texts - people misunderstand it. Also not to be confused with the 11 Rudras which is also called Ekadasha Rudras, they are different beings ) (Destroyer), Maheshvara ( Tirodhana or Concealer), Sadashiva ( Anugraha or Blessings- he recreates the universe after dissolution).

Higher than this fundamental 5 deity's are the 2 Mahavidya's. i.e Sodashi (Tripura Sundari) and Kali. There exists 8,10,12,16,18 Mahavidyas as per different traditions and authentic Sanskrit books. Generally if we consider 10 Mahavidyas , the rest of the 8 Mahavidyas are originated from the primary 2 Mahavidyas as per sanskrit scholars. i.e from Kali and Sundari. Often in iconography, Kali and Sundari are seated on a cot made of the 5 fundamental deity's Brahma , Vishnu , Shiva - some times called Rudra , Maheshvara , Sadashiva indicating their supremacy over all other deity's. Sodashi and Kali are just 2 faces of a coin and the primary god in Hinduism is represented by Aum symbol is Brahman which is Nirguna - with out any forms. In other words Brahman is said as pure consciousness.

Before getting into Kali, we have to understand that who is

.

Parvati was the 3rd wife of Shiva/Rudra. The first wife of Shiva was called Kali (but not the Tantric Kali we mentioning in this wiki page). Kali, Saraswati and Lakshmi were given as wives to Hindu Trimurtis Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu respectively by

. This is also explained in Devi Purana. After some point Kali and Lakshmi left Shiva and Vishnu because they insulted them and very egoistic about their powers. They went back to Adi Parasakthi. After sometime Vishnu and Shiva done penance to Adi Parasakthi, to get back their wives. Lakshmi was born again and appeared when Devas and Asuras churn ocean for amrita. Lakshmi was then given again as wife to Vishnu. Kali was born again and appeared as the daughter of Daksha Prajapati as SATI. But as everybody knows about the story, she committed suicide in the fire when Daksha insulted shiva. Again she was re incarnated as Paravati - but as the perfect incarnation of Adi parasakthi - as the daughter of Himavan. This whole story can be found in Devi Purana. Parvati was also called as Kali because of her dark color. So she done penance to Brahma and shed her dark color and become white. She is then also called as Gauri - the white one. The dark skin she shed was become a goddess and she is called Kaushaki.

So the word Kali appears multiple times in Puranas in order to represent many things. The first wife of shiva, the dark colored Parvati and also in the Tantric mahavidaya called Kali. THAT IS WHY I PROPOSED THE MERGER OF THIS ARTICLE KALI WITH MAHAKALI.

Coming to Durga, if you check Devi Purana or any authentic Puranas we can find the term Durga appearing multiple times often as synonyms to many goddess. Often the mahavidyas Kali and Sundari are called as Durga, sometimes Adi paraskahti as Durga, sometimes Parvati as Durga. Also durga appears as the combined power of all Devas including Trimurutis, sometimes appears as the combined power of Trimurtis wives, sometimes when Parvati becomes angry her form with her entire weapons are also called Durga. Durga is TOTALY another diety.

The original Durga is Adiparasakthi, she took form when all gods put their to Sakthi, energy to form a goddess. Sometimes also said Lakshmi, Saraswati and Parvati was responsible for creating Durga. These are the most popular 2 version regarding the origin of Durga

So i cannot agree with "David R. Kinsley" or most authors opinion. Devi Purana talks about it in detail. The term Kali appears to indicate multiple personalities in course of time. If we want to explain the real TANTRIC KALI then she is the wife of Mahakala ( who is not associated with Shiva/Rudra - the hindu destroyer). That is why i proposed the merger with MAHAKALI, change the name of article to Mahakali, redirect all KALI QUERY'S to Mahakli page. MAHAKAL AND MAHAKALI popularly appears on Tantras, not much in Puranas. But as mentioned in some texts, when trimurtis in war or Lakshmi, sarswati, Parvati in war they are often said to invoke Kali or 10 Mahavidyas, ashta Matrikas for aid. The husband of real Kali, the Tantric Kali is Mahakala. Lots of tantras tells about it.

Again in the above section , i noticed that there are proposal for continuing Kali and Mahakali as two separate articles. But most people when search for Kali they are looking to know about the Tantric Kali, which is Mahakali. Pavanai45 (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

After reading your further arguments, my "oppose" above is even stronger. Wikipedia relies only on reliable sources, not on different personal views of what is the "real TANTRIC KALI." While it's entirely my own opinion, I also strongly disagree that most people coming to this article are looking for the "real TANTRIC KALI." Most English speakers don't even know what that means, and I suspect most Indians looking for Kali article on Wikipedia are not Tantriks. We need to have all reliably sourced perspectives in this article, including that of the Tantric Kali. If you could support your arguments above with reliable sources, then let's include them in this comprehensive Kali article. First Light (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

After a few days of working on this article, nearly all of the dodgy sources have been removed and/or improved to reliable sources. There are still too many issues that keep this from qualifying as a good article. Some of the major issues remaining, in my opinion, are the following:

• Need for better organization. There is a lot of repetition between the different sections. The same or similar iconography is brought up in several places; stories are repeated (raktabija, shiva/kali, etc.); concepts are repeated (tantra approach vs. more devotional approach); sections could be reorganized.

Update: Some progress, thanks to Redtigerxyz. Still more to do. First Light (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• There has been a fair amount of dishonesty with applying sources that don't support the statement. It seems like people added original research and then slapped a source in place. I suspect the Shiva in Kali Iconography section still has a lot of that, based on my reading some of the sources that are cited. In fact, that section is mostly an essay and could be removed. I've done enough removal for now — if someone else wants to remove it you have my support.

Update: Every reference I was able to check (which was most of them) showed that there was very little or no relationship between the cited material and the reference. The section was essentiall an originally researched essay, so it was removed altogether. First Light (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• The citations need a lot of clean-up. For example, someone just slapped "Kinsley, p. x" all over the place. Kinsley has a few book on goddesses, and these cites don't make that clear. Also, there needs to be some consistency with citation approach to bring this back to GA status.

Update: Done. First Light (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would like to get the opinion of someone knowledgable with Sanskrit to check the Etymology section. Some of it is dubious to me, especially the part that says "Kālī means "She who is time", "She who is beyond time", "She who is the Mother of time", "She who is black"." I couldn't find a reliable source that phrases it in those precise ways that the quotes would imply.

Update: Some real improvement due to the re-insertion of a paragraph from the Good Article version that was removed. First Light (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There is more, but these are the worst issues that would fail a Good Article review. I intend to put it up for review at some point — sooner if there is no interest from others in making major improvements. These could be done over time, so I'm not in a hurry if there is some interest in fixing this article. It is surely worth of much better treatment than it's been receiving since it was first made a Good Article. cheers, First Light (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

) 11:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a Content Fork. Merge.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I also support a Merge, though there seems to be no redeemable reliably sourced material that isn't already at this article. So it would just be a redirect. First Light (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:UserK had created the article with dishonest and deceptive use of sources that didn't support the content — along with blatant copyright violations and use of non-reliable sources. Some day a separate article may be useful, but the section here should be more complete first. First Light (talk

) 05:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Questionable deletions from the page and the answer of Why different page is needed for Dakshina Kali?

The iconography/symbolism which is written in the

talk

) 05:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not understanding everything that you are saying, but I'll answer what I can.

• Devdutt Pattnaik, as far as I can tell, is a popular culture/mythology author whose expertise is as a physician and leadership consultant. I'm willing to be proven wrong in my opinion that he is not an expert in religious studies. Other opinions here would be appreciated. I have some of his books, so I'm not biased against him as an author or person.
• Many of your additions that used reliable sources did not correctly state what was in the source. In fact, I feel that in some instances there was deception on your part in sticking in a citation that had no relationship to the material that you added. That is the only time I have removed or edited such additions. Usha Harding and her book Black Goddess of Dakshineswar is cited and referenced by many reliable and academic sources. It's actually a favorite book of mine for many years. I'm not biased against using that book, only against dishonest or sloppy additions that are mostly personal opinion and original research that bear no relation to her work. I plan on adding some material from her book, making sure that it is correctly interpreted.
• It's wonderful that you have experience and knowledge of different ways of worshipping Kali throughout India. Unfortunately, personal knowledge can not be introduced into Wikipedia articles. You need Reliable Sources. I've already encouraged you twice to study Wikipedia policies on Reliable Sources,[14][15] yet you continue to use sketchy blogs and personal websites as references. These will continue to be removed, or in some cases (as I have done), reliable sources found.
• Your Dakshina Kali article included such sloppy sourcing, and it also included an egregious copyright violation.[16][17] These types of edits have reached the point of disruption on your part. Please start learning and following Wikipedia policies and your additions will be retained. It's as simple as that.
• I would be happy to see the Dakshina Kali section improved (with Reliable Sources - please read about that) and honest use of them. For example, the detailed Iconography section of that article you created was cited to Harding's book, but nowhere could I find any mention in that book of the "multiverse," or the "pure white chest of Lord Shiva," or her red tongue "representing greed," or "the body lying under Kali symbolizes ruination." You made all that up.
• You have lost a great deal of credibility with me because of your disruption,[18][19] removing tags without fixing the problem,[20][21] wrong use of sources and thus original research,[22] and refusal to learn Wikipedia policies. I would be happy to have my perception of you change — but your behavior will have to change first.

— First Light (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is ok to revert the edits that seems not reliable as per wikipedia terms. Hope you have understood that all I want to say is - each form of Kali shall have some basic iconography written with them. That is why I had created a new article. But it is ok to have these iconographies well written in the Kali page.

) 05:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's improve this article first, using reliable sources. Also please be careful about not doing

WP:Original Research. For example, nowhere do reliable sources describe a named form of Kali as "Maternal Kali" as you had previously added that section. All the named forms of Kali have a maternal connection, of course. Iconography of that maternal connection should be under Daksinakali, Smashan Kali, Badrakali, etc. Regarding mantra of Kali, there are many, many mantras. If you can find a reliable source that states one is predominant, then it's ok to include that, with an explanation of why it is notable enough to include. Again, reliable sources only, not self-published websites and blogs. First Light (talk

) 13:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Kali Etymology

It has been written that Kali means time as "that which brings all things to an end, the destroyer.". This idea is misleading because in Sanskrit Kaal means time (Kaal can be used in the context of death) and Kali means changing aspect of time that brings things to life or death. Kali does not literally mean destruction it means integration of creation and destruction . Please provide the information throughly. And Kaalratri literaly means the black night (in Sanskrit) not the night of death. Etymology means grammar not context. And if some one is talking about Hinduism then Kali means the victory over evil and Kaalratri means the keeper of souls of deads in warfare.

talk

) 06:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Daksinakali

I see a problem in this section. The following is written in WP:s voice:

• Kali appeared to him in a dream and told him to popularize her in a particular form that would appear to him the following day. The next morning he observed a young woman making cow dung patties. While placing a patty on a wall, she stood in the alidha pose, with her right foot forward. When she saw Krishnananda watching her, she was embarrassed and put her tongue between her teeth.

The Krishnananda Agamavagisha article adds "It is said" in front of this, but I ask someone with access to the sources (assuming the cited sources are good for this) to rewrite it (in both articles) so we are told were this comes from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Kali has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is incorrect "She is called kālarātri (which Thomas Coburn, a historian of Sanskrit Goddess literature, translates as "night of death")" My proposed change: kālarātri means "Black Night"-kala means black and ratri is Sanskrit/Hindi for Black Mjchacko (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane ^talk

04:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Kali,Bhowanee, and the Thuggee cult

A re-direct from "Bhowanee," a name associated with the religious practices of the Thuggee cult, goes to the Kali page, but the Kali page does not mention the name Bhowanee, nor does the page have any information on Kali's relation to Thuggee.

Do any interested parties have opinions on this point? MusselParty (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A more likely redirect target for that name is to Bhavani, which is often pronounced "Bhawani" or the more Bengali "Bhowanee." These are all just various transliterations and pronunciations of the same word. First Light (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly! What you say is correct and it turns up some new citations (for me) on this subject. MusselParty (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better to use a benign image of kali in infobox that grows the interests of readers. The current image has quite a good resolution and good to use as a image of a goddess since this page is about a Hindu goddess.Sav85 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion above about the infobox image. There is currently no consensus for continually changing the image to everyone's favorite Kali image. First Light (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There has been a never-ending slow edit war over the infobox image of Kali. Everyone has their 'favorite, this is the real Kali' image. I've reverted the latest edit warring so that it can be discussed here. I'm posting a few of the images here so they can be !voted on, along with a couple of other good quality images. Feel free to add others. If there is no consensus, I propose that it revert to the image that was in the article when it passed the GA process. As a good article, images should be high quality, clear, ideally a Featured Image.

Also, feel free to comment on each image. Note: There is no consensus that these images should be paintings, photos of murtis, or anything but the best image!First Light (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

My personal choice would be in the old/ancient and beautiful direction (so I´m ok with the current, I assume it´s indian art), but I can see the appeal in a sort of

WP:COMMONNAME direction. If there is an accepted "everyday" Kali, 2D or 3D, that could be a good choice, though in my opinion, something like at Shiva seems so history-less. #4 makes me think of Heavy metal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 18:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, especially since the current one is such a high quality image. I've changed my opinion below and above, to reflect my change of mind. First Light (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Here´s one for April 1:st: [23] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

LACMA

Comments:

• This is the image that was in the article when it passed GA review. If there is no consensus for any image, article should naturally revert to the GA approved version. This would be my second first choice. First Light (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• First Second choice as a depiction of perhaps the most well known Kali murti, though image quality is not the highest. First Light (talk)

• If a high quality and high resolution version of this could be found, I would consider this as a first choice. First Light (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• More artistic than some of the other cheap lithographs that are being placed in the infobox, including the supposed Ravi Varma one below. First Light (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• Image is much too dark and not very representative, in my opinion. There is also a much more representative image by the same artist, by googling *Ravi Varma Kali painting*. First Light (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This image is also a good option. Img = Kali from 1885-95.jpg ThaneFreedomScholar (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

ThaneFreedomScholar, could you try that again? A link, at least, would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think you meant this one. I still prefer #1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You have guessed the correct image. Thanks. Actually the image I have shown is depicting Goddess Kali stepping on Lord Shiva. This is the most accepted iconography of her. Also #1 shows bit less details. ThaneFreedomScholar (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

All of the images above, except for the closeup of the Dakshineswar Kali, also show her stepping on Lord Shiva. That image doesn't show it only because it's a closeup of her face. First Light (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually it depicts the goddess according to the story . Admist the battlefield. ThaneFreedomScholar (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn´t all the 2D:s do that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It must be काळी (Kali) & काळिक (Kalika). काली & कालिक are the hindi spellings, rather సమీర్ (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the first photo under the "Iconography" section as it was incorrectly identified as Kali when it is clearly the Buddhist Tantric ishtadevata Kurukulla. Should one find it suitable to include a different (accurately identified) image of Kali in the place of the removed Kurukulla image, I would have no objections.

The photo in question was this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kali_sculpture_from_Calcutta_Art_gallery_1913_(2).jpg

To see more on the iconographic representation of the Buddhist Kurukulla, see: https://www.himalayanart.org/search/set.cfm?setID=226

Even a preliminary inspection will result in an obvious identification of Kurukulla, not Kali. Technovajra (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Technovajra

it is easy to know that people show disrespect without having a complete knowledge about subject , may be i may not have a full knowledge about the subject but if i stated some clear written proven facts than why Wikipedia decides to not to verify my works and delete my edits . i can prove my point without any doubt . why is the material on Wikipedia incomplete..? why you are not telling the world the correct information.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravimishra085 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ravimishra085 Your edits are not in good taste and not supported by reliable references.Prasanthkumar17 (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone (not me, this time) added this section awhile back, and such sections can become problematic, causing instinctive dislike in many Wikipedians. As one editor put it, "Realistically, sections like this are like cancer. If you leave a little it just encourages everybody to put their favorite little factoid in it and it metastasizes. It is better to remove the cancer in its entirety. Otherwise you just simply have to live with a giant list of trivia that dwarfs the rest of the article." A couple of thoughts.

Items included should be well sourced, the more scholarly the better (such sources may well exist, surprisingly often I find). Just existing is not enough, remember

. If there is enough good sources, consider a separate article.

It doesn't have to be "In popular culture" only, consider examples like Cain_and_Abel#Cultural_portrayals_and_references and Moses#Cultural_portrayals_and_references.

Related discussions can be seen at [24] and [25]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This [26] could be worth a mention if there's good sources for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Kali is often portrayed standing or dancing on her consort, the Hindu god Shiva, who lies calm and prostrate beneath her. "

None of the pictures of Kali standing on Shiva show him prostrate. "Prostrate" means facing down. Facing up is "supine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:7C93:3BB1:8702:8EF5 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The name seems incorrect and should refer to as Kaali rather than kali.People could misinterpret it to the demon kali,ruler of Kali Yuga. Hari147 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Per

WP:COMMONNAME Kali seems the right choice. Many things can be misinterpreted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 14:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Maa Bhavatarini's face @ Dakshineshwar Kali Temple.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)