Talk:Shaktism
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theShaktism article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1,2Auto-archiving period:3 months  |
  | This article iswritten inBritish andIndian English, which have the same spelling conventions (colour,travelled,centre,defence,artefact,analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus. |
 | Shaktism has been listed as one of thePhilosophy and religion good articles under thegood article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so.If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This level-4 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
| 1,2 |
This page has archives. Topics inactive for90 days are automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III. |
Someone had added Smartism as one of the primary schools of Hinduism. In fact, it is a largely caste-based sect of Southern Hinduism, not a primary strand. As far as I know, Smartism was never considered as a major school of Hinduism until Satguru Subramuniyaswami proposed it as such in the mid-90's. He undoubtedly had his reasons -- albeit mainly sectarian and idiosyncratic -- for doing so. But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to clarify, not obscure a topic.
For all practical purposes, a newcomer approaching Hinduism will be helped by understanding that the faith mainly comprises three sects: Vaishnavism, encompassing Krishna and Rama-centered cults, and representing the vast bulk of rituals, practices and beliefs that most Hindus follow; Shaivism, the more meditative and philosophically sophisticated practices placing Shiva at their apex; and Shaktism, the focus of this article, encompassing the Devi or Goddess-centered sects. These divisions are a useful starting point for getting a grasp on what Hinduism is.
In summary, then, the inclusion of Smartism is (a) a largely arbitrary and sectarian inclusion (i.e. if we admit Smartism as a "main school" of Hinduism, we immediately face the claims of at least a hundred other equally qualified sub-sects); and (b) a complex and difficult subdivision to explain, unlike Vaishnavism and Shaivism, and one more likely to confuse and obscure readers than to enlighten them.
Adi Shakti in form of Goddess Kali is liberator of Moksha. Hence Shaktism is paradoxic too many scientific interpretations are similar with all paradoxic shaktism Concept.
This is rather minor but the devanagari at the top doesn't have a visarga, presumably because the aim was to quote it in dictionary form. Conversely, the IAST does. Might it be a good idea to delete the 'h' with a dot under it from the IAST to make it exactly consistent with the devanagari?104.255.135.185 (talk)12:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just come from the Shakti page and it needs a LOT of work. Would any of the authors of this page be interested in working on the Shakti page?— Precedingunsigned comment added byHemmingweigh (talk •contribs)20:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Vasant Panchami" section (which also looks under developed). Should this article go toWP:GAR?Z1720 (talk)01:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Vasant Panchami" section (which also looks underdeveloped).Z1720 (talk)00:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ankeshav, a few points to note:1) Lead is a place that provides the reader a summary of the content in the article, not a place to add new text. New text is first to be added in the articles body under appropriate sections with proper citations.2) The citations you added in the lead are causing multiple citation errors in the 'References' section.3) This article is given aWP:Good Article status after a lot of work by experienced editors, changing lead without consensus by adding un-encyclopedic text in the lead will undo it all. Also Good articles and featured articles DO NOT need citations in the lead.4) Hope this information helps you.Rim sim (talk)15:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
