User talk:70.179.170.192

Cleanup

Could somebody please break the last section of the page into sub paragraphs, as it is very unwieldy,possibly using sub headings. I don't have the knowledge of the text do it properly.

perfectblue 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vishal1976

The version i have created is a summary of your information. The information you had provided was in a hap hazard state. Thus to meet the wikipedia standards, i have put the info in proper English. Thatz all. I respect your sentiments for God Khandoba. Please let this version remain.

Please stop stop 'Tamil' Venu vs 'Maratha' Vishal war.

God bless. Khandoba cha chag bhal!

--Redtigerxyz 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Grate. Thanks. But the destruction and infame done by Venu62 is very bad. -- Vishal1976

Dear Vishal,

Reply 2 ur "Human's canot(cannot) edite(edit) god's secred(sacred) , holy text. you can only translate." Wikipedia is not the place to translate 'god's holy text'. If the articles - on gita or Puranas or RAMAyana or Mahabharat was put translated then the article would be 1000s, maybe crores of pages!!!!!!! Same Implies to Malhari Mahatmya.

WhY don't you start a site instead where ur valuable input to this article is put? U know articles have some Kb limits.

God bless. Khandoba cha chag bhal!--Redtigerxyz 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

yess. i have already this in my mind. But what about the vandalism committed by Venu62 and Meltitas etc. They gotta me banned and kidnapped my article Maratha clan system. You can gess that waht business these vandalist got to do whith these article except vandalism ?? They haven't put a single good , informative word to this articles but deliting good information. If the havent been to Jejuri or god Khandoba's temple , then what right they got to edite here. As they do not belong to Maratha caste , then one can get ther malicious , vwnoms intention to vandalise this articles. I have been to god Khandoba's temple several times and read , gathered information about Maratha caste in good , pious intention.And about your said objection that each articles have KB limits , but if Wikipedia autorities have no objection then why are you bothered ?? Those who hate god Khandoba , Maratha pepole and are non beliver do not have any right to edite here. Did i ever vandalise Tamil articles befoure this war started ?? Kee these in mind and consider my lawfuul rights .--- Vishal1976 -- Vishal Prakash Duhane

Wouldn't u be scared to read a 100 line para?--Redtigerxyz 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the same with the Jyotiba article Mr Redtigerxyz

I Vishal1976 hade transalated good information about god Jyotiba, but vandalist Venu62 and MelTitis vandalised that article and repetadely kidnnapeed the article without any justification . Can you put the short information about my post AS Shree Kedar Vijay Mr Redtigerxyz. You know that these vandalist have blocked me and they both are sock puppeters.

History at Jyotiba article :- 10:28, 20 March 2007 61.17.205.115

Names Of Wives

This is regarding the way the wives of Khandoba are addressed in the article. My suggestion would be to use Devi at start or end of the name. e.g Devi Mhalsa or Mhalsadevi. The current usage is improper and i strongly feel it should be changed. If anyone has any other suggestion please feel free discuss it. If none respond to this suggestion from me, i shall be changing the names to what i have suggested, say in a day or two. (Asro 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

The devi term is not known to those who are not familar with Hinduism.--Redtigerxyz 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vishal1976

The current edition of article god kandoba is vicious and defaming the god. It should be altered and those who are responsible should be punish in the court of law. In this article the god khandoba is potrated as sexy man, lusty for womens, marrying outcaste girls. If you see all the caste mention in this articles , even today they don't intermarry, marry outcaste. The meaning, tone of this article sounds very loudly to defame, insult the god Khandoba and Maratha caste and spread missleading information about god Khandoba in all world. Dose Wikipedia allows this vandalism ??? I Vishal Prakash Dudhane, User Vishal1976 have personaly visited both forts god Khandoba and did the ritual like Abhishek , Tali Bhandar etc many time in pious intention. I have talked the peoples, priests. Many of my Maratha relatives and other friends lives ther in Jejuri will certainly will not agree with current edition of this article. I expect argent, quick legal, ethical, moral actions against the vandalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.140.159 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vishal1976, maybe the idea of marrying "outcaste" girls is wrong in your view but maybe not in the view of Lord Khandoba or those who wrote His stories. Please provide concrete references as per WP:VERIFY policy to rebuke the matter in the article. Just for references, Hindu gods are known to linked to more than 1 consorts in religious texts like Puranas. e.g. Krishna - 16008 queens, Vishnu - 2 consorts (Lakshmi and Bhudevi), Ganesha - Riddhi and Siddhi etc.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I bet you Redtigerxyz are not from Brahmin caste. Instead of asking refernce from those writers whose genetics, ansestory, genpool have no refrence, you should find the reasone why Brahmin caste are not allowed to enter the Khandoba temple of Jejuri and Bhavani temple of Tuljapur. This will throw a sunlight in your vicious innermind that you are carring and vandalisin all Maratha gods related article. Anyway you Brahmin are so poor, triffle to me that i even can't remember the splee of Brahmin word.-- Vishal1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.252.172 (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not have any personal attacks or vandalism, Vishal. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Narration

I wonder if any editor has a copy of the Malhari-mahatmya and if they could use it to fill in more details about the career of Khandoba? Right now the section is way too small and may look better if it is combined with the 'wives' section. I appreciate that Khandoba is generally not very well known as other divinities. Ekantik ^talk 03:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:MOS, the list of temples would look much better further down the article after the 'worship' section. It isn't appropriate to begin an article with a list of temples rather than give information about Khandoba himself. What do other editors think?

P.S. I will data-mine some academic references about Khandoba when I get the time. Ekantik ^talk 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khandoba/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead should be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, there should be information in the lead that is not in the body of the article and so there is no need for references in the lead unless you are backing up a direct quotation.
   • In the second paragraph of the Legends section, you say " The demon was slaughtered by the gods and finally Khandoba killed the two demons." Can you clarify this, please? Which demon was slaughtered by the gods? I thought the only demons that the story was talking about were the two that Khandoba killed...

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • My main issue with this article is with the reference formatting consistency, just as it was with the Putana article. Book references need to be consistently in the split ref format, if that is the one you choose to use; full refs should be organized by author, and I suggest that you use the cite book template; and links should be made through the title of the work, rather than being a bare ref.
   • There are a few spots that need references:

   • The last sentence of the Etymology section.
   • The last bit of the Iconography section.
   • The last sentence of the Wives section
   • The last sentence of the Other associations section.
   • Most of the Twelve temples section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

reworded the legends sentence.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There are refs in the lead as things like "He is the most popular family deity in Maharashtra" need not be repeated again.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the list, retained some of them, which are named elsewhere in the article with references.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and struck the items that you've completed. The things that I see as still needed for GA status are the ref formatting and the referencing of the remainder of the temples section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

References are available for these temples elsewhere in the article, so their existence can not be questioned and only statements can be challenged need a ref. Will work on citation, sorry forgot that. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The part in the temples section that I'm most concerned about is the description of the Jejuri temple, especially where you start talking about the belief that this is where Khandoba first appeared on earth. This probably needs a citation, if you have one close at hand. Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentence removed, ref added. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks great, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind Khandoba is another god in the Hindu pantheon like Kali, Ganesh or Vitthal or Balaji. People worshipping on of these gods don't normally have a problem also worshipping the other gods and so calling those worshipping Khandoba as belonging to his cult or sect may not be appropriate. The whole Khandoba article cites references from just one book, just one book ! Makes one wonder how it was ever given a good article status ! 74.9.96.122 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)