Scolecodont and Talk:Ganesha/Archive 2: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Buddhipriya (talk | contribs) →Is this evidence that the brothers had disputes?????: preliminary thought regarding references used |
||
Line 1:
{{peerreview}}
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|currentstatus=GA
|action1=GAN
|action1date=February 4 2006
|action1link=
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=38258720
<!--|action2=PR
|action2date=DATE PEER REVIEW ENDED
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ganesha
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=ID NUMBER OF VERSION
-->
|maindate=
|ftname=
|ftmain=
}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{V0.5|class=A|category=Philrelig}}
|2={{FAOL|Italian|it:Ganesha|lang2=Bulgarian|link2=bg:Ганеша}}
|3={{WikiProject Hinduism|class=GA|importance=top|myth=yes}}
}}
{{Archive box|
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
}}
==Ayyappa==
Although Ayyappa is seen as the son of Shiva, he has never been equated with Ganesha. Hence I'll be removing the word from the page. [[User:Jay|Jay]] 09:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
==Betray: Another meaning==
Sorry, , but I really think that what you wrote about Ganesha not being idolatrous because it is not meant to be an image of the God will not be accepted by orthodox Christians as valid. [[User:Andries|Andries]] 05:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
: Dear Andries, I don't know why you are feeling sorry. I wasn't trying to argue with Christian theology. I don't think you understood the written English there, as I was writing that CHristians, Jews (and Muslims) believe that any sort of form worship is technically idolatrous, hence when British went to India, they termed murtis idols as opposed to icons. Now, the sentence says that to call a murti an idol is to betray a Judeo-Western mindset... in English, if you didn't know, betray not only means to go against insidiously but in ''this sort of a construction'' to reveal, or show, as in to call all Hindu statues idols shows that whoever is speaking is obviously coming from a Judeo-Christian background. --[[User:LordSuryaofShropshire|LordSuryaofShropshire]] 14:59, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
::You were right. I didn't know this meaning of to betray.[[User:Andries|Andries]] 17:59, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
== Ganesh as Brahmachari ==
"He is a son of Shiva and Parvati, and the ''husband of Bharati.''" Am I the only one who's heard references of Ganesa being a ''brahmachari'' (meaning chaste, unmarried)? --[[User:Adityan|Adityan]] 16:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
: Nah... I've heard it as well, though it is a relatively marginal viewpoint. Long ago, Tantrics went through a lot of expositions about how he's married to both Riddhi (wealth, fortune) and Siddhi (accomplishment, spiritual power) and manifold layerings of derivative symbolism and hierarchical metaphors for more abstruse concepts. If you find books or references, or a scripture or story, that highlight him as celibate, it would be great if you added it into the article as an alternative viewpoint that has legitimate foundations in Indian religion. --[[User:LordSuryaofShropshire|LordSuryaofShropshire]] 18:18, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
:: I came across a story in the ''Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna'' of how Ganesha chose to lead a life of ''brahmachari''. I have added it under '''Some incidents related to Ganesha'''. [[User:Apnavana|Apnavana]] 6 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
The issue of Ganesha's marital status and/or celibacy has been the subject of considerable scholarly review, and shows much regional variation. For a review see: Cohen, Lawrence. "The Wives of Gaṇeśa", pp. 115-140 in: Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, Robert L. Brown (editor), SUNY Series in Tantric Studies (State University of New York Press: Albany, 1991) ISBN 0-7914-0657-1. I intend to work on this issue in the article to gradually expand it. Note that this issue is complex because Ganesha is a complex deity with a voluminous mythos. Some sources such as the Mudgala Purana address these layers of meaning by noting that Ganesha has had multiple incarnations across multiple ages, and this explains why some myths contradict others. Also, some reconcile the brahmacari issue by pointing out that all married men were unmarried at first. Close examination of the Ganesha Sahasranama (1000 names of Ganesha) shows names supporting a variety of relationships. For example, the name Buddhipriya is a name of Ganesha that appears in the Ganesha Purana. The name can mean "fond of Buddhi" in the sense of wisdom, or in a relationship sense with Buddhi as a feminine principle. This topic is sufficiently complex so that it could be a separate article. Can someone tell me about length standards for articles and when a subarticle is justified?
== The Number 9 ==
Does anyone know anything about Ganesha's number? (Assuming he has one.)
:The number 9 when written in the [[Devanagari]] script resembles Ganesha's head and trunk. Could it be that this has something to do with the number 9 and Ganesha? -- [[User:Rohitbd|Rohitbd]]
::How interesting that the symbol of 9 also looks like an elephant when turned horizontally to the left:). --[[User:Snowgrouse|Snowgrouse]] 12:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:: It could be this way also! Ganesha, the ''siddhi-daataa'' (Victory-giver) represents wisdom that cannot be defeated. You multiply number 9 by any other number/s. And you total the resultant digits. You get 9 only. No other digit from 0 to 8 has this unique property!
:: [[User:Apnavana|Apnavana]] 03:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Perhaps this is a pointless thing to bring up, but 9*22 will give you 198, and 1+9+8 will not give you 9. There are many other numbers you may multiply 9 by where you will get the same result, so your explanation of the Ganesha's supposed number does not make sense to me. If there's something I'm missing, please point it out; I would like to learn more about this theory. -- [[User:Sandwiches99|Sandwiches99]] 21:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that its a pointless exercise. But your own example 1+9+8 i.e., 1+9 = 10+8 = 18 again 1+8 = 9. You have to reduce the resultant figures to single digit. Whatever be the number of digits, if multiplied by 9 the resultant single digit will always be 9. – [[User:Apnavana|Apnavana]] 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In his introduction to the 1993 edition of the Sanskrit text of the [[Gaṇeśa Purāṇa]] the editor Ram Karan Sharma notes that the Gaṇeśa Purāṇa seems to consider the number 21 as sacred to Gaṇeśa. For example, specifying 21 names for recitation during worship (I.46.204-206, 215-7, and 69.46f), 21 fruits to be offered to him (I.69.55), 21 twigs of dūrvā grass to be offered to him (I.49.62, 69.46, and 87.8), and various other examples which Sharma cites. Text references are to the 1993 Sanskrit edition of Gaṇeśa Purāṇa, Ram Karan Sharma, editor. {{cite book
| last = Sharma
| first = Ram Karan
| coauthors =
| title = [[Gaṇeśa Purāṇa]]
| publisher = [[Nag Publishers]]
| date = 1993
| pages =
| month =
| isbn = 81-7081-279-8 }}
[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I just did a search for references to the number nine in the Upāsanā Khaṇḍa of the [[Ganesha Purana]] and did not find anything to suggest that the number nine is of particular significance to Ganesha there. The [[Ganesha Sahasranama]] given in I.46 of the Ganesha Purana does include a short series of ten names that begin with the number nine, but this is not remarkable because the organization of the Sahasranama includes a section in which all the numbers between 1 and "endless" are connected with him. So there are similar series for all of the digits. Names beginning with nine are in verses I.46.149-151 of the Bailey edition of the Ganesha Purana. Just thought I would pass this on. :) [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
== Corrections / Viewpoint ==
1. When Parvati was idly playing around with some mud one day, she noticed that she had unwittingly created the form of a boy.
When she noticed this and expressed surprise at the beauty of the form, she breathed life into it and thus Ganesha was created. Those were the days that Shiva used to go away on long periods of meditation/tapas. The boy thus grew with time. It then so happened that one day she asked Ganesha to stay outside and guard the house while she bathed. She was specific that nobody should be let inside. The little boy understood the instructions and took it seriously. Thus when Shiva happened to come by and saw a young boy guarding the door, he was surprised. He tries to go in but Ganesha bars him entry. Shiva questions him, but the boy simply says that his mom has forbid anybody from entering the house. Shiva at first reasons then gets angry and cuts off Ganesha's head. Parvati obviously on hearing this commotion and learning what has happened is disconsolate. Shiva says that the child will come back to life if the head is transplanted by the head of the first life form and sends his ganas to accordingly get the head of the first thing that they see. The ganas spot a baby elephant whose head gets transplanted on to Ganesha.
This is the proper story as told to me by my very elderly devout mother. I have not found a single internet source that captures this as well as stated by my mom.
This formation by mud is mistakenly translated as dirt. That is the reason Mud Ganesha's are made to this day in the villages of India for worship during Ganesh Chaturti and then dissolved in flowing/well water. ( No other God is worshipped thus ). That is also the reason shape is also given to Ganesha using the auspicious turmeric instead of mud, for first pooja before the start of any major pooja.
Any Hindu who knows his religious traditions will know this.
: The version that I am familiar with is that Parvathi created Ganesha because she felt that none of the Ganas were truly loyal to her as their loyalty lay with Shiva. I am afraid I have never heard of the version that Parvathi created Ganesha while playing. -- Wikirao
:Yes, I too heard the later account... The details vary slightly - in one account Parvati uses the Sandalwood paste from her body to model a boy. <span style="font-family:century gothic"><font color="DarkRed">S</font>facets</span> 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::There are many variants of most of the Puranic just-so stories in that section. The cleanup effort on this articla has been gradually adding citations for most of the other sections, but I have not yet done anything with the Puranic miscellaneous things yet. If you wish to add references by all means do so, or simply add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to ones that leap out as in particular need of clarification. Many of the things said in the stories section are near misses or garbled versions. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Ganesha's wives are known as Siddhi and Buddhi particularly in South India.
: Yes, this is my understanding too. -- Wikirao
== Ganesha article - reference to solar eclipse ==
In the Ganesha article, in the section "Some incidents related to Ganesha", there
is a reference to Ganesha softening Chandra's curse to apply only during a surya-grahana.
My recollection is different, that the curse applies when one sees the moon during
a "Ganesha Chathurthi". Is my recollection right? I have never heard of the surya-
grahana version, is that right? Are they both right - i.e. are there two versions?
-- Wikirao
The solar-eclipse version was incorrect. I have corrected it. -- Rohitbd
:: Thanks. -- Wikirao July 5, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
== Second version of how Ganesha got his elephant-head ==
In the article, in the second version described in the "Overview" section of how Ganesha got his elephant-head, it says that Parvathi was showing off the child when Shiva's gaze causes it to turn to ashes. This seems incorrect, unless it is a version I am simply not familiar with. My recollection of the second version is that Parvathi was showing off her child, when she observes "Shani" looking away from the child. When Parvathi asks Shani to look at the child, he does, and his sight causes Ganesha's head to break into pieces, which is then restored with the head of an elephant. Does anyone else remember this version? -- Wikirao July 5, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
I have also heard a version where the head was severed. There are many different versions of most stories in the Hindu religion only differing slightly. [[User:220.233.11.111|220.233.11.111]] 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
== Devanagari? ==
Why not have the Sanskrit: गणेश, or proper transliteration of Gaṇeś(a)? I understand the other languages might have their feelings hurt, but a little etymology doesn't hurt :-) I can only guess for the other epithet/languages (the Online Sanskrit Dictionary has both गणपतिं and गणपती, and my Hindi dictionary has गण-पति - take your pick I guess!), ગણપતિ?, விநாயகர் (act. vināyagar according to Tamil article). ॐ श्री गणेशय नमः ! [[User:Khirad|Khirad]] 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like to encourage use of Sanskrit as it often clarifies the underlying meanings of words and names. I do not speak Hindi or Tamil, but can comment on the Sanskrit. For example, the name गणेश (Gaņeśa) is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words गण (gaņa) meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system + ईश (īśa) meaning lord or master. While the word गण in association with Gaņeśa is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of Lord Śiva's retinue, the term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. So some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of created categories" such as the elements, etc. The translation "Lord of Hosts" is not bad as it may convey a familiar sense to Western readers. The name गणपति (gaņapati) is a synonym, being a compound composed of गण + पति (ruler, lord, [or "husband" in a marital context). If these names are to be in the masculine nominative case they should end in visarga (ः) as गणेशः (Gaņeśaḥ) and गणपतिः (Gaņapatiḥ). For English readers the case endings are usually omitted as they would just be confusing. When the name is used in the mantra श्री गणेशय नमः it is in dative case (Gaņeśāya), meaning "To the illustrious Gaņeśa, salutation!" The form गणपती (gaņapatī) is feminine and thus would not be correct for the masculine deity we address as Gaņapati.
Gaņapati is probably the most commonly-used name of Gaņeśa, for which it is a synonym. The special devotees of Gaņeśa are known as the Gāņapatyas ("devotees of Gaņapati"), for example.
Note that in Sanskrit grammar and writing systems there is no notion of capital letters, but transliteration for the benefit of English readers usually capitalizes the first letter of a proper name because that is the convention in English.
It is also worth noting that the Sanskrit language can be written using many different writing systems. The Devanāgarī writing system is very widely used both in India and by Western academics so it is commonly readable by specialists in the field and by Hindi speakers. Because Sanskrit alphabet has many more letters than English, it is sometimes impossible to tell what word is meant when only English alphabet is used for transliteration. For example, the difference between long and short vowels is lost.
Please forgive in advance any errors I may make in Wikipedia procedures, as I am new to this project. I notice there is quite a bit of vandalism to the articles, which is sad.[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 05:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I also just checked the transliteration guidelines for the parent project (Hinduism) and found that various issues are discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Dharmic%29#Primary_transliteration
That guideline confirms that the use of IAST as an academic standard is listed as the first option, which I agree with as it is the most clear method. For details on IAST see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAST
== Why is Ganesha so popular? ==
From what I can see, Ganesha is a very popular Hindu god. Being someone from a Westerner background, I am quite intrigued: what makes him so popular with Hindus? If you have so many gods to choose from, why does one (or more generally a few) get so much attention while many others don't get that much? Surely there must be reasons... Is it something historical? Is it because of the god's particular attributes? This is a question I was wondering while reading this article, and was disappointed that it does not really answer it. Someone who knows the answer to this question should add it to the article.
: He's the remover of obstacles. I dunno about you, but I could use a few obstacles removed. Sounds like a pretty good recipe for popularity to me.
: [[User:WillWare|WillWare]] 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
== Alternate explanation for broken tusk ==
Somewhere I heard or read that when Vyasa and Ganesha sat down to record the Mahabharata, Ganesha didn't have a pen, so he broke off the tip of one tusk to write with. No idea how canonical this explanation would be.
[[User:WillWare|WillWare]] 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
==Controversy==
The following section is unverifiable and I have searched yahoo and www.mlbd.com, Motilal Barnisddas, if such scholar exists. None appeared.
Another variation can be found in the work of the Indian religious scholar, Prof. Pradeep Sarkar. First cited in his paper 'The reflection of ancient India in modern India,' (1999) Sarkar weaves together from various ancient texts an altogether more prosaic sequence of events: frustrated during one of the ascetic Shiva's lengthy pilgrimages to the forest, his wife Parvati took a lover, fell pregnant, and gave birth to a son, Ganesha. When her husband Shiva returned he encountered the boy, who identified himself as Parvati's son. Shiva, immediately understanding the developments which had unfolded during his absence, was enraged, and struck the boy violently, breaking his nose. Remorseful for his misdirected anger, Shiva took the boy to the nearest surgeon, who proceeded to attempt to reconstruct the boy's nose. This could not be done without significant disfigurement. Subsequent religious traditions have attempted to mask this disfigurement with the visage of an elephant, leading to the familiar images of today.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Pradeep+Sarkar++reflection+of+ancient+India+in+modern+India%2C&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=1
If the author can cite legitimate verifiable sources, please do and we can add this section.
I am concerned about Wikipedia's lack of credibility. There may be authors, as we know, who merely vandalize; see this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_fake_bio
[[User:Raj2004|Raj2004]] 00:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
== Sanskrit ==
This article is missing the sanskrit writing --[[User:DotShell|Shell]] 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== Done with Devnagri.. almost ==
I've put in devnagri spellings for other names. Could somebody check the spellings? My knowledge of Devnagri is very basic. Additionally could any body add the tamil name?
[[User:AMbroodEY|अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey]] 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
== Have to eat... ==
back shortly...--[[User:Lacatosias|Lacatosias]] 12:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
== Moved this from translation page ==
==== '''Article''': [[:it:Ganesha]] ====
*'''Corresponding English-language article''': [[Ganesha]]
*'''Worth doing because''': Italian article is featured article. English is fairly close to becoming one.
* '''Originally Requested by''': <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></font></b> ''<sup><font color="orange">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Status''': Compteled by [[User:Lacatosias]]. This might require a few days.
<br/><br/>
Moved this from translation page, as per the Wikipedia instructions. There doesn't seem to be much more to be done in terms of translation from the Italian version, but let me know if someone thinks I've misinterpreted something (extremely doubtful (; ) or if there is anything else I can do in terms of structuring, etc. etc.. Glad to help.--[[User:Lacatosias|Lacatosias]] 08:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
==Fluatist or flutist?==
The text read that Vishnu took on the appearence of a fluatist when he went to get Shiva out of the stomach. Not being aware of any such word, I rendered it 'flutist', as seemed most likely from context. Pardon my ignorance if there is an Indian instrument called a 'fluat'; if that's the case, a link or an explanation might be in order, or other people will probably make the same assumption I did. [[User:Candle-ends|Candle-ends]] 18:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::Correct answer: neither. Fluatist was a typo. the correct English word for someone who play's the flute, however, is not flutist but [[flautist]]. --[[User:Lacatosias|Lacatosias]] 11:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Ok, flautist or flutist are both used. I've always preferred flautist and mistyped it. That should clear things up anyway.--[[User:Lacatosias|Lacatosias]] 11:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
==Republic Section==
I have removed this section, for obvious reasons.
[[User:Sfacets|Sfacets]] 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
'
Dear Sfacets
The reason is less than obvious, and the delete action comes across as the modern trigger happy response, ' shoot ask questiosn later' - 'have keyboard will delete'.
For accounts of the Jat traditions on Lord Shiva and Lord Ganesh see,
for starters
* Ram Swaroop Joon, History of the Jats, 1938,1965, New Delhi.
*[[Thakur Deshraj]], Jat Itihas, Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi. 1936. (in Hindi),
Both books are online in the Jathistory forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/
or are you suggesting that the published [[Jat]] accounts, are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia?
[[User:Ravi Chaudhary|Ravi Chaudhary]] 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are worthy... if you had included them. Feel free to re-insert '''relevant''' information that doesn't duplicate what is already found in the article, and back it up with the sources you provided.
[[User:Sfacets|Sfacets]] 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Response>> Sfacets, raman
Thank you
Here is the wording I suggest we use.
Please correct if need be.
" · Ram Swaroop Joon, History of the Jats, 1938,1965, New Delhi.
· Thakur Deshraj, Jat Itihas, Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi. 1936. (in Hindi),
Both books are online in the Jathistory forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/
Ganesh, Head of the Republic( Gan(a))
In the North Indian Jat traditions, Ganesh , is known as the Lord, or Head of the Gan or Gana, the Republic. Shiva and Ganesh hold a special place in their traditions
The word Ganesh is considered by them to formed by ‘Gan( a)’ and ‘esh.’ Gan indicating the republic and the suffix ‘esh’ indicating ‘Lord, or Head’.
Ganesh is also known as Ganapati, the suffix 'pati' indicating Lord or protector of the Republic .
He guided the affairs of the republic,. Nothing happened in the republic without his permission. A marriage ceremony would be performed with his blessings, and entry to the republic area would be with his permission.
In time he evolved into being the Lord of Beginnings, and in the Hindu customs today, all ceremonies start with him.
References:
* Ram Swaroop Joon, History of the Jats, 1938,1965, New Delhi.
* Thakur Deshraj, Jat Itihas, Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi. 1936. (in Hindi),"
If no objection, then I will post it.
[[User:Ravi Chaudhary|Ravi Chaudhary]] 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
'''Spell difference jarring'''
Well, Ganesh and Ganesha - both spellings are right according to the difference in pronounciation, for uniformity sake would you make it Ganesha? When I read the whole article in one go, the spell difference is indeed jarring. [[User:Apnavana|Apnavana]] 09:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Apavana
I think/feel the same way.
I am used to the pronunciation Ganesh, without bthe 'a' added on. For some reason,one finds the 'a' added on, on other cases, Ram, Lashman, Shiv, etc.
I tend to think it is the attempt to find an equivalency in the English Script when translating from Hindi/devnagiri script, but the pronunciation stays without the 'a'.
Can someone else input!
[[User:Ravi Chaudhary|Ravi Chaudhary]] 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:Ravi, are you sure Gan/Gana means Republic. With my knowledge of Sanskrit and Hindi, I think it means elephant. Maybe, it some parts of India the meaning has changed. Also too much is written about it. I don't want to sound rude but on a Wikipedia article there is not enough space to write a paragraph on every ethnic group in India's view on Ganeshji. Otherwise, there would "Punjabis believe Ganesh is ..., Tamils think Ganesha is, Rajasthanis, Gujaratis, Bengalis... Do you understand? It is just much information. My best idea to shorten is to create a section at the bottom called "Other views on Ganesh" or besides Ganapati and Ganesh in the ''Names of Ganesha'' section, write they mean Lord of the Rupublic in Jat traditions. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Dagizza
No :
You are not being rude, at all.
The Elephant is 'Gaj'not 'Gan(a)'.
It is quite clear that the Gan(a) means republic/people/group. The hindi name for the Republic of India( Bharat in Hindi), is Bharat Gan(a) ( that is also expressed as Ganpad, Janpad, Ganrajya, Janrajya. the J abd G sounds are interchangeable in many cases. , (but Ganesh does not become Janesh).
The suffixes 'pad', or 'raj'indicate a type of society,
On the jat relationship.
It is not only the Jat, whose traditions speak of this. The other republican societies do the same
If you feel the section can be improved, by shortening it, please do go ahead.
Best regrads
[[User:Ravi Chaudhary|Ravi Chaudhary]] 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've organised a litter better now but I'm still confused. At the bottom in the section "Names of Ganesha," it says Ganapati means lord of the [[Ganas]], which are servants of Shivji. What does "The Republic mean? Does it refer to the Republic of India. I don't think Bharat has always been a republic! I created a separate section on how Ganesha's name is derived. I put the references at the bottom of the page. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The section "Ganesha as the Head of the Republic" mentions Jat communities, specifically, but this notion has broader currency, for example, in Maharashtra. This section should be made more generic, with a reference to Jat communities' view of Ganesh as the Head of the Republic, not as the main focus. [[User:Sarayuparin|Sarayuparin]] 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
== Idol to Icon ==
I changed a reference in the "Lord of Good Fortune" section from "idol" to "icon" to avoid the loaded connotations of the former.
I think that was discussed earlier. "Idol" is too POV for me.
== Deleted Dead link ==
I deleted a dead link in the external link section pointing to http://www.saranam.com/Deities/108Names.asp given with the title of "108 names of Lord Ganesh with meanings".
The website was updated completely & hence most of the old files have been removed.
[[User:Avenash|Avenash]]
== Milk Miracle ==
I'm the one who added the part on the milk miracle of 2006 (I forgot to sign in). This clearly requires more than half a sentence, so any additions are more than welcome. --[[User:WikiMarshall|WikiMarshall]] 18:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
== Shameless Plug ==
Deleted irrelevant and shameless plug about Ganesha's blog that was inconsipicuously slipped into the introduction
== GA Re-Review and In-line citations ==
Members of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles]] are in the process of doing a re-review of current [[WP:GA|Good Article]] listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article Criteria]]. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found [[Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates|here]]). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to [[WP:CITE]]) to be used in order for an article to pass the [[WP:V|verification]] and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles|talk page]] or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 22:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
:But you must underatdn that some of this article was translated from the Italian version. The Italian wiki does not provide sources anywhere. In fact, there are only about 5 people who know about the Italaian wikiepdia!!--[[User:Lacatosias|Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias]] 10:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
::I understand but for the benefit of [[WP:V]] and to comply with the Good Article Criteria, we will need some kind of reference. As I mentioned above, you have at least a week's time. (Most likely more with 3-5 reviewers for 1400+ articles). I would see what type of help the Italian Wikipedians might give. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I was actually addressing the others who have contributed and might (or might not) be interested in maintaining the GA status. I will leave a note on the talk-page of the Italian version. But don't bet on an answer any time this century. You're better off looking for your own sources.--[[User:Lacatosias|Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias]] 09:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I will be happy to gradually add citations, and have begun with the first paragraphs to suggest what could be done. A great deal of the scholarship is in books, so many of the citations will be to print publications and not just web resources. Please note that most of the original source materials for this subject are in Sanskrit, and some citations to Sanskrit texts will be needed. My opinion is that at least in the footnootes the use of IAST and Devanāgarī should not be objected to as strongly as some do in the main article, as the footnotes are intended for the serious reader who wants the details.[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
==Refernces==
I left a note on the Italian talk page. The response was "this information can be found in any text that deals with Hindu divinities". I have no such texts. As I wrote above, other editors of this article should find and cite their own sources, if they are concerned about this GA stuff. --[[User:Lacatosias|Francesco Franco]] 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
===Authentic source===
Is there any authentic source for this: '''Ga' symbolizes Buddhi (intellect) and 'Na' symbolizes Vidnyana (wisdom).'' appearing in the very first para? – [[User:Apnavana|Apnavana]] 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
===An Exemplary Case of The Problem with Hindu Mythology in Wikipedia===
I appreciate all this content on Wikipedia on Hindu Mythology, since it aids in anyone's study of the subject which is still thinly charted territory. The symptom of this is largely uncritical presentation of the matter. It says that one syllable in the name symbolizes this, and a broken tusk symbolizes that, and two companions symbolize yet something else. What is the source for those statements? Oral tradition? I think so. In that respect, these articles actually violate the not-original research principle of Wikipedia. However, I think an exception must be made for this vast topic that could perhaps never be critically worked up were it not for many people contributing on Wikipedia. Alas, many more challenging questions need to be asked and flags need to be put up to call for more critical revisions. [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 22:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
:No there will be more than just oral tradition '''to support these facts'''. There should be commentaries written by Hindu saints/philosophers/gurus (People who are very educated and learned about Hinduism) who mention these statements. Some of the information has been sourced at the moment though of course should be in the future, preferably not from websites. I may do it when I get the time. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 06:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of any citation that supports the "ga" + "na" statement in the text, but I wish that someone would provide a citation so it can be reviewed. It is in fact common for such fanciful interpretations to be made by commentators, and in some cases simply providing the source for the statement is the key to understanding. The problem with transliteration of Sanskrit is painfully obvious here because this epithet is not gana (गन), it is gaṇa (गण), so this may be a case where an expansion on the history of this name may be helpful. The statement in the article that 'Na' symbolizes is puzzling because the root word vidya (विद्या) emplys dental consonants, not cerebral consonants as in the cerebral ण of gaṇa, but since there is no citation the logic of the assertion cannot be determined. The epithet Ganesha is in fact a general title that has been applied to various deities and probably became widely used for this deity only in the medieval period, as noted in the developing article on the Ganesa Purana. Historically there is much evidence that the epithet was intended to refer to the word गण and various citations can be given to establish this. There are a great many comments in the current article that seem to me to be unsupported. I am tempted to make some "bold edits" to address some of these things but hesitate to do so because I am new to this project. I do have some knowlege of this topic however and hope to gradually influence things. One thing I wonder about is when to create a subarticle for a complex topic. For example, the subject of Ganesa's marital status has been the subject of lengthy scholarly review, and could easily make a full article. The current article mentions "wives" in two places, with different content, and the content in the third paragraph is to some extent simply wrong. This is an area where a more systematic treatment could be done, with citations. I mention this here because I think that before making "bold edits" it would be wiser to raise the issue in the talk area. I took the plunge and made some test edits to the second paragraph, so please react to them. I would like to suggest that as a standard of practice the first time a Sanskrit word is used it be handled using a template such as the one I put into the second paragraph like this: Ganesha Purana ([[Sanskrit]]:{{lang|sa|गणेश पुराणम्}} {{IAST|gaṇeśa purāṇam}}) . If the first use is clear like this I feel more comfortable with using informal variant transliterations later, which seems to be the current practice here. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
== Ganesha image ==
[[Image:Ganesh Festival.jpg|thumb|150px|Jaya Ganesh]]
I have just uploaded this photograph should anyone wish to use it in the article. Best wishes, ys, [[User:GourangaUK|GourangaUK]] 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
== Citation format for individual articles appearing in book compilations ==
I do not see a standard template for articles within books that are collections of scholarly pieces among the samples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations
The format I need would normally look something like this in print:
Narain, A. K. "Gaṇeśa: A Protohistory of the Idea and the Icon", in: Brown, Robert L. (editor), Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God (State University of New York Press: Albany 1991), pp. 21-2. ISBN 0-7914-0657-1.
Can someone help me make this citation correctly in Wiki via a template?
Also, I am unsure how to handle "op. cit." citation formats in Wiki. Normally in a paper I would cite a reference in full the first time it is used, and then use "op. cit." with a page number for following footnotes that reference the same source. But in Wiki since anyone can move or delete anything, if I do not provide full citations for each ref instance, the detail may disappear or be altered (vandalized?) at will, making the rest of the refs wrong in unpredictble ways. What is the best way to deal with recurring citations?
It looks like most of the references now in the article are to online resources rather than books, so perhaps that is why this issue has not come up.
[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
== Disambiguation of Ganesha page has broken all links to it? ==
Someone added a disambiguation page for Ganesha, which is probably OK, but now all the links to the Ganesha page appear to be broken, as they point to the disambiguation page. This action was done by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Use_the_force What to do? I did not know that Ganesha was the name of a recreational drug, so I guess it shows I am out of touch. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to [[User:DaGizza|DaGizzaji]] for rescuing us from the disruption. The more I see of Wikipedia the more it reminds me of the eternal battles between the devas and the asuras. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
== Proposal to move some content to a subpage ==
When editing the page now Wiki automatically tells me that "This page is 53 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See [[Wikipedia:Article size]]." I agree with Wiki's opinion. The page size has been increasing as I have been adding citations and detail, particularly to the section on Ganeshji's marital status. I am perhaps a bit more than half way done on the expansion of that section. I have not yet added detailed references on his celibacy, the Lakshmi/Sarasvati connections, the Ashtasiddi connections, and some other tidbits. I plan to continue that expansion over the next week or so. Once done, the section on marital status should have been expanded to what may be full-article status. I recommend that it be extracted from the page and made a subpage, with a link to it from the Ganesha page. Do others agree this would be a good move? As we begin to add full citations to other sections, they too may develop in a similar manner, so we need to plan ahead. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
== Protohistory of Ganesha ==
The subject of Ganesha's history is another distinct topic that may be a good one to expand. There has been a lot written on this subject. Most of the books that I have been citing so far include references that relate to the development of the deity. In approaching the subject there are some disagreements in the academic literature. It is possible that the section would be long if it were done well. I would like to put out a call now for book citations that any of you feel are of particular importance on that specific subject so we can do some review of the materials together. For protohistory of the pre-Ganesha figures that eventually morphed into the figure as we know him one of the best single books that I have found is Anita Thapan's "Understanding Ganapati: Insights into the Dynamics of a Cult" (Manohar Publishers: 1997) ISBN 81-7304-195-4. I like Thapan because she pulls together material that is scattered in various places. Protohistory is covered in chapters 2 and 3 on pp. 42-100. Even summarizing that material (58 pages, dense with citations) may make a good article. What do others rely on as sources? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] ([[User talk:Buddhipriya|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Buddhipriya|contribs]]) 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to see that some additional citations related to the pre-Vedic period are being added. The material given conflicts with published academic sources, and I would like the opinion of other editors regarding Wiki policy on use of non-scholarly sources. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources. As we work together to assemble a reference list for the history of Ganesha, it is to be expected that sources will conflict. That point is made by the recent academic papers on the history of Ganesha. As colleagues our first task may be to reach agreement on what sources are acceptable for this article, and when sources do not agree, how to iron out those point of view. In addition to the Thapan book which I previously suggested as standard, I would like to draw attention to Robert L. Brown (editor). Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God. (State University of New York Press: Albany, 1991) ISBN 0-7914-0657-1. That is a compilation of academic studies on various topics related to Ganeshji. The first three chapters deal with the history of Ganesha from pre-Vedic times to the present. The specific chapters are:
*A. K. Narain. "Ganesa: A Protohistory of the Idea and the Icon"
*M. K. Dhavalikar. "Ganesa: Myth and Reality"
*Ludo Rocher. "Ganesa's Rise to Prominence in Sanskrit Literature"
These three, along with Thapan, are all current surveys. Quite a few additional references can be added, with some perspective on the older sources that are no longer considered authoritative.
My suggestion for what to do about the article would be to rename the section that was just re-added on pre-Vedic material (which I feel is unreliable) to something like "History of Ganesha" and then add subsections for major bodies of research. Thapan (p. 15) and in the organization of chapters in her book provides some structure, as do the other authors. Something like this may be a good place to start:
*Early Influences (would include very early issues such as elephant worship, etc.)
*The Vinayakas and Ganapatis prior to the emergence of Ganesha as a distinct figure
*Ganesha as a distinct deity (Brahmanical and Puranic materials and rise to prominence)
*Development of the Ganapatya sect and geographic spread of the cult
*Acceptance of Ganesha as compatible deity by other cults
*Perceptions of Ganesha in the modern period
== How to handle material on Santoshī Mā? ==
On my talk page my fellow editor Redtigerxyz raised a very good question: "DO v really need 2 write abt a 'goddess', who has 'no Puranic evidence' in the Ganesha article????" This is a very valid point. Here is my thinking on it:
:1. I have been working to expand and cite the section on "Wives" and had come to the topic of Santoshī Mā because it is relevant to popular cultural beliefs about Ganesha on this subject.
:2. The content of the material was a summary of information included in two standard academic sources, which I cited (Cohen and Thapan). Those authors include her because she is a good example of how popular ideas about Ganesha are often based not on academic sources, but on oral tradition or popular culture. Additional sources related to her probably can be added but I did not do a deep search, thinking those two were enough. I do not often cite web-based sources, but I added a link to the IMDB credits because according to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources "Exceptionally film credits on IMDb, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." Trivia on IMDB is not considered reliable, and I did not draw from the IMDB trivia section. My intent was just to provide data on the production credits. See the remarks on IMDB at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples
:3. There is a Wiki article for [[Santoshi Mata]] that contained a flat statement that she was the daughter of Ganesha. I noticed that editor Redtigerxyz had removed that statement either that day or perhaps a day earlier, which is what drew my attention to her on my watch list. Rather than just having the issue disappear I thought it might be better to put some references up regarding the issue. Perhaps I should have done so on the [[Santoshi Mata]] page rather than in the Ganesha article. It may also have been better to discuss the question on the talk page prior to making the edit, and I shall try to be more careful in such cases in the future.
:4. The broad public appeal of Ganesha is noted in the introduction to the Ganesha article. His role in the new cult of Santoshī Mā is a proof that Ganeshji is part of a living spiritual tradition that touches the hearts of modern people in new and unexpected ways. That point is made by Thapan in the Introduction to her book, where she discusses Santoshī Mā as an example of how "... the functions deities are believed to perform correspond to the needs of their worshippers and since these are constantly evolving so are the deities that fulfill them." (Thapan, op. cit., p.2) This evolutionary perspective on the history of Ganesha is the subject of her book, which begins with pre-Vedic times and moves to the present day.
</blockquote>
For reference, here is the material that my fellow editor deleted:
<blockquote>
The depiction of Ganesha as a family man includes a recent claim that [[Santoshi Mata|Santoshī Mā]], a new goddess of satisfaction, is his daughter.<ref>Lawrence Cohen, op. cit., p. 130</ref><ref>Santoshī Mā is discussed by Anita Thapan, op. cit., pp. 15-16, 230, 239, 242, 251.</ref> She emerged as a deity following the release in 1975 of the popular film ''Jai Santoshi Maa''.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073191/ |title="Jai Santoshi Ma" |publisher= [[IMDB]]|accessdate=2007-02-17}}</ref> The film is entertaining but has no basis in Puranic legend or other known scripture. In particular the claims that Ganesha had a sister and a daughter appear to be unique to this film. In Maharashtra there is a popular belief that Ganesha has a sister in each of the four directions and he goes to meet each of them annually on the occasion of [[Ganesh Chaturti|Ganesha Caturthi]].<ref>Thapan, op. cit., p. 239.</ref> But this is not the same myth as depicted in the film.
In the film Ganesha is depicted as a householder ({{IAST|gṛhastha}}) with wives, sons, and a sister. As is common in North India his wives are depicted as Riddhi and Siddhi. His sons are depicted as Shubha and Labha. The boys are are unhappy because they, unlike Ganesha, have no sister. But Ganesha is ambivalent about having another child. The boys and the women plead with Ganesha, and the sage Nārada convinces him that having a daughter would be good. Ganesha assents and from Riddhi and Siddhi emerges a flame that engenders Santoshī Mā.
</blockquote>
I am quite new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with many of its policies. I hope this will be an opportunity for me how to learn how to deal with the diversity of editorial views in a constructive manner. My understanding is that the talk pages are to be used to build consensus around areas of disagreement, which I why I posting these questions here. I seek the input of more experienced editors on these questions. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 20:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't think Santoshi Ma should be excluded from the Ganesha article, simply because she does not have a Puranic origin. As long as one can establish a ''well-documented and non-trivial'' relationship between an entity/practice and Ganesha (originating in scriptures, social practices or even popular culture), it deserves a mention in the article. Of course, one needs to keep in mind considerations such as article length, and relative importance in deciding the level of detail - but I'll leave that to the judgment of editors here better versed on the subject.
:: To give an analogy : many rituals associated with [[Ganesh Chaturthi]] owe more to the cultural movement started by Lokmanya Tilak, rather than the puranas. I assume though, that no one will argue that those "modern" practices should not be discussed (in the relevant article), and only some sort of proto-festival should be presented ?!
:: Comment: Nice job on the article by all involved editors. Perhaps, after the current round of editing is complete, we can have the article [[WP:PR|peer reviewed]] [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::: You may also consider staring an article of the movie [[Jai Santoshi Maa]]. That way, some of the details mentioned by Buddhipriya above can be moved to that and the [[Santoshi Mata]] articles, while mentioning the subject briefly here. Something along the lines, "Ganesh has been depicted as an householder married to Goddess Santoshi Maa and father of ....in the popular Hindi film [[Jai Santoshi Maa]]; the movie script is however not based on scriptural sources". <small> Sorry, I messed up all the familial relations :-) </small>
::: In creating the film article, it would be good to follow the guidelines laid down at [[WP:INCINE]]. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I liked Abecedareji's creative suggestion to add a page for the film [[Jai Santoshi Maa]] and did so. It was fun, and it even gave me the chance to use a ''spoiler warning'', something I would not have expected in connection with Ganeshji. :) I used the spelling for the film name as used at IMDb. I tried to follow the guidelines laid down at [[WP:INCINE]] but as this was my first try at film pages perhaps I did something wrong. Could more experienced editors please check the page for format? Since the film page now exists, I will add a sentence to the main article using language as Abecedareji suggested. Let's see if this approach is more acceptable to others. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
== Shri Ganesha and Muldhara Chakra ==
Please note that this is not a spam and is significant information in relation to the root chakra <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Workie77|Workie77]] ([[User talk:Workie77|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Workie77|contribs]]) 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Sorry, but the link does not seem to meet the test for verifiable sourcing in my opinion. It may all be true, but better citation to accepted academic sources is needed. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
:Here is a link that covers use of online sources in particular.
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources
:The link you propose falls into the category of those operated by religious groups, which may be appropriate for some things, but the organization apparently makes no claim to expertise in Ganesha and cites no reliable academic sources for the Ganesha material. Also note that this link was first rejected when posted from an IP user:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganesha&diff=next&oldid=109400132
:On that attempt it was rejected by editor Natalie Erin. So I am the second editor to reject it on the Ganesha page. For history of rejection of this link on other pages such as Durga and Devi Mahatmya see
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.167.159.20
:If you do not agree, let's please discuss it here and get input from other editors before you add the link again. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:: I agree that though adding of the link may be well-intentioned, it is not appropriate for the article as per the wikipedia guidelines on [[WP:EL|External Links]]. In fact, many of the links currently in the article fail that test. I have therefore pruned the list, somewhat ''conservatively'', i.e., perhaps even more links can be deleted unless they provide (at least somewhat) reliable and useful information ''that is not already present in the article.'' [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Wonderful, wonderful! I think that quite a few more can go but I wish someone else would hack away before I do, or people will think I am just a crank. Overall if we can raise the bar on what is expected of references it would be consistent with the stated call in the Hinduism Project. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::Abcedere, Could you please point out just how it fails per [[WP:EL]]? Thanks.
Buddhipriya, the link is not being used as a reference here, but as an external link, and so different guidelines apply. <span style="font-family:century gothic"><font color="DarkRed">S</font>facets</span> 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:::This to me looks like an attempt to promote the web site for [[Sahaja Yoga]], a cult organization that has been a magnet for controvery, as documented on the current talk page for that article. As a link from Ganesha, links to Sahaja Yoga fail the following tests under
:::[[WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided]]:
:::*Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
:::*Links mainly intended to promote a website.
;;;*Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and reciprocally related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
:::[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
== [[Ganesha beyond Hinduism]] ==
I have started this new article and would like you help me expand it. I intend to the role of Ganapati in Buddhism , Jainism n also his presence in other countries like Sri lanka, Thailand , Japan etc. Thanks.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
== Orphan books on the book list ==
I am updating the book list to add current academic reference books and prune things that are of unclear value. I have moved this one off the book list to here because I cannot find any solid citation information for it and I don't see any mention of Joon, his book, or the Jats in the article. If someone has a better story on this one please provide details.
* Joon, Ram Sarup, ''History of the Jats''. (Publisher: n.p. [published by author?] n.d. [ca.1967?] [or: 1938, 1965], New Delhi) [out of print, hard to find]
Another that cannot be located and is not specifically cited in the article:
* Sarkar, Pradeep. ''The reflection of ancient India in modern India''.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
Another obscure one that does not seem to be specifically cited in the article. This one is also rather old. Old things can be priceless in some cases, but the reason why this item is included is not explained.
* Thakur Deshraj, Jat Itihas, Maharaja Suraj Mal Smarak Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi. 1936. (in Hindi){{Fact|date=February 2007}}
Daniélou has reliable citation information, and the book can be found on online bookseller sites (I checked), but I cannot find a specific mention of it in the article, it is in French, and it is old. Does anyone else see where it is mentioned in the article? With Ganesha studies, anything published prior to the 1980s is likely to be out of date, particularly with regard to developmental history. (Alice Getty's 1936 book is the exception that proves the rule.) I do not have the Daniélou book and my French is not very good. If someone wants to brief us on what this book has, it would be helpful.
* Daniélou, Alain. ''Le polythéisme hindou''. (Flammarion: Paris, 1960). pp. 443-452. ISBN 2080813099.
== Pproblem with versions of the Atharvashirsa ==
I am moving this addition here so it can be cleaned up prior to reinsertion.
<blockquote>
The Mooshak is also the emblem of Ganesha. Ganesha is invoked as "Mooshak-dhwaja" (one who has Mooshak-the mouse on his flag-dhwaja) in the [[Ganapati Atharvashirsa]] - Verse 9.
</blockquote>
As the article on the [[Ganapati Atharvashirsa]] explains, there is no generally-accepted numbering system for verses. Please cite which edition you are referencing so the citation can be verified. I will look in the three different editions that I have access to later. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
== Please cite sources ==
There is no reliable source cited for this addition so I have moved it here pending further identification. There are several different versions of how the mouse came to be associated with Ganesha. The Puranic literature is a vast field where anything and everything can and has been said about Ganesha. Finding a story in one place does not mean that is the only story. We must be more critical and cite sources.
<blockquote>
According to a [[Purana]] story, the Ganesh rat was actually the [[Gandharva]] or celestial musician called Krauncha. One day, at the [[Indra]]'s Court, Krauncha insulted the Sage [[Vamadeva]] by absent-mindedly walking over the feet of [[rishi]] (aother version says, by absent-mindedly kicking the rishi) who cursed Kraucha transforming him into a big rat.However, after the sage had calmed down, he promised Krauncha that one day, the [[Devas]] themselves would bow down before him. This rat went in the [[ashram]] (hermitage) of the Sage [[Parashara]] and caused a lot of damages. The Rishi invoked Ganesha to safeguard the ashram. Ganesh appeared ,trapped the rat with his lasso and made him his [[Vahana]] (mount).
</blockquote>
In general, many of the other stories in the article are equally unreliable and contain much misinformation. It will take time to clean it all up. Personally I would move the entire section on Puranic stories to the talk page and then gradually re-add improved versions of the material as we can focus on each one. Working with the defective sources we have now on the article is very time-consuming.
I am moving these paragraphs about the mouse here, as they are unreferenced speculation on what the mouse means. There is a great deal of this sort of stuff in the devotional literature about Ganesha. Is is fine to believe these things, but opinions vary and for any statement made here a completely different view could also be cited. The article reads like a devotional tract in many places rather than an encyclopedia article that must cite reliable sources.
<blockquote>According to one interpretation, Ganesha's divine vehicle, the [[mouse]] or ''mooshikam'' represents wisdom, talent and intelligence. It symbolizes minute investigation of a cryptic subject. A mouse leads a secret life below the ground. Thus it is also a symbol of ignorance that is dominant in darkness and fears light and knowledge. As the vehicle of Ganesha, a mouse teaches us to remain always on alert and illuminate our inner-self with the light of knowledge.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Both Ganesha and the Mooshak love [[modak]]a, a sweet dish which is traditionally offered to them both during worship ceremonies. The Mooshak is usually depicted as very small in relation to Ganesha, in contrast to the depictions of vehicles of other deities. However, it was once traditional in [[Maharashtra|Maharashtrian]] art to depict Mooshak as a very large mouse, and for Ganesha to be mounted on him like a horse.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Yet another interpretation says that the mouse (''Mushika'' or ''Akhu'') represents the [[ego]], the [[mind]] with all of its desires, and the pride of the individual. Ganesha, riding atop the mouse, becomes the master (and not the slave) of these tendencies, indicating the power that the intellect and the discriminative faculties have over the mind. Moreover, the mouse (extremely voracious by nature) is often depicted next to a plate of sweets with his eyes turned toward Ganesha while he tightly holds on to a morsel of food between his paws, as if expecting an order from Ganesha. This represents the mind which has been completely subordinated to the superior faculty of the intellect, the mind under strict supervision, which fixes Ganesha and does not approach the food unless it has permission.
</blockquote>
[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
== Some suggestions ==
Currently the table of content is very imposing, both in length and width. Here are some suggestions for shortening it and making it easier to navigate:
* Stubby and empty sections (such as "Temples of Ganesh", "Other meanings") can be removed with the corresponding links being moved to "See Also" unless there are immediate plans to fatten them up. Even in that case "Temples of Ganesh" can be under the Worship of Ganesh
* The "History of Genesh" can e combined with the Etymology section, perhaps retitled "Origins and etymology"
* Since the article is about Ganesh, the repeated use of "of Ganesh" or "Ganesh's" in section titles is superfluous. Similarly the sub-sections of "Other associations" (is there a better title for this ?) need not repeat the word "Association"
* Titles such as "Ganesha's special connection with Wisdom (Buddhi)" can be shortened to "Connection with Wisdom (Buddhi)" or even more succinctly, "Buddhi (wisdom)". Many other section/sub-sections titles can also be similarly shortened.
* The sub-sub-sections under "How did he obtain his elephant head?", "How did Ganesha's tusk break off?" and "Married or celibate?" can be converted to paragraphs with bolded headings (see Brahman, Ishvara etc under [[Hinduism#Concept of God]] for an example). Ditto for "Books" under Further reading, i.e. if the heading "Books" is even needed.
All the above points are ''merely suggestions'', so please use your judgment in choosing which ones to adopt. The article is coming along nicely and can hopefully be put up for peer review soon! [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 19:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:I think all of these suggestions are good. What do you think about the idea of moving the unreferenced material out? It is very difficult to improve the article if we continue to add more unreferenced material. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am working to implement your suggestion but hit a snag with the History of Ganesha section. I previously moved that whole section to the talk page because the content is not supported by any reliable sources and conflicts with current academic thinking. My removal of the section was reverted by another editor. As a proud member of the [[Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club | Harmonius Editng Club]] I voluntarily follow a one-revert rule. Since I have reverted this once, I will not do it again. Would you please look at the section and help decide what to do with it? Doing a good job on the history section probably would take a full separate article as there is huge volume of material to condense.[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:: If a statement in the article seems suspect, it is best to mark it with one of the "citation needed tag" (discussed at [[:Template:Fact]]). Then if a (reliable) source is not added in a reasonable amount of time, it is good to move the material to talk page - just as you did.
:: As for the history section - lets leave it in for now. If it is expanded soon (say within a week), perhaps it deserves a section of its own; else we can merge it with the etymology section or delete it if it is not referenced properly. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:::[[:Template:Fact]] says not to use that tag "in order to label text which appears doubtful or false", which is the case here. It says "For dealing with dubious information, please use <nowiki>{{verify source}}</nowiki>." I will add that tag for now but please adjust as you think fit if there is better way that is considered collaborative. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I have tried to implement as many of your suggestions as I could see. Please look it over again for structure and we can give it another pass. Regarding peer review, I would like that very much after we have continued to remove the unreferenced speculations and near-misses that weaken the article now. I have made a lot of edits to this today and I think it would be best that I let other editors look them over before I make more. I fear mass reversions. Would you also please look at [[Ganesha_beyond_Hinduism]] where similar issues of content quality are in play? [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
== about.com needs to go ==
The about.com site should be removed, and I will not break the 3R rule. [[Wikipedia:External links]] states that "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." That is, a positive argument to include a link must be made. If a site is objected to, someone needs to explain why it is needed. Under "Links normally to be avoided" the guideline notes:
1. "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." The about.com site is an advertising-funded commercial site that uses popup ads and frame-capturing to prevent the user from navigating away. These factors alone should exclude any links to about.com on any topic.
2. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Regarding Ganesha, the site does not provide any significant materials beyond what would be in this article.
We need to enforce these policies across the board on Wikipedia. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The link adds a vast amount of useful information; per WP:EL:
<blockquote>
# Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
# Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
</blockquote>
The site is a neutral one, does not employ "objectionable amounts" of advertising, (could you give an example of where there is frame-capturing?) - the site also provides links to related subject which are covered in a much more in-depth fashion than is currently shown on Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:century gothic"><font color="DarkRed">S</font>facets</span> 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:Regarding frame capturing, on my browser (Internet Explorer), when you first visit a link on the site it splits the screen into two frames and attempts to throw up a popup ad which my popup blocker intercepts, but generate a warning dialog box which must be closed. After this transaction, there is a thin frame at the top of the page which persists regardless of what you do in the bottom frame. All of the popup ads are objectionable to me because each time I click a link a new one is intercepted by a popup blocker, requiring that I dismiss it. Perhaps your configuration does not produce this effect. Let's see what other editors think. For more spam fighting tips see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam|WikiProjectSpam]]. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what spam has to do with this. After whitelisting the site on my browser (Firefox + Adblocker), I noticed that the only thing that changes is the one popup window per page (hardly excessive) and the banner embedded in the page (also normal practice on webpages). If your criteria for removal is the fact that the website has popupsvand advertising, then a lot of news sites would need to go - because most major websites use ads to generate revenue for continued service. <span style="font-family:century gothic"><font color="DarkRed">S</font>facets</span> 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
: I think the problem is "on my browser ('''Internet Explorer''')" :-) I don't have any pop-ups showing up on Firefox.
: But seriously, I think the about.com is a decent, though not authoritative, link; and one of the rare source for articles on Ganesha, Hinduism etc on the web written in a neutral language (i.e. not from the perspective of a devotee). Just my 2c. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/tt_destroyer.html]
Also talks about origins of pre-Vedic Ganesha
:The site contains a couple of paragraphs about historical material that is not specifically referenced and which includes garbled bit of things. Hundreds of pages of materials on the history issue appears in the books which are listed in the book list on the Ganesha pages. It is difficult to summarize all of them via Wikipedia where every time a sentence is added to the article it may be reverted the next day by anyone. Ganesha was not a Vedic god. The historical studies about him that were done prior to about 1970 had very little real historicity and were supplanted by more detailed work that began to be published by Heras around 1970. Speculations about elephants in the Harappan period need to be kept cleanly separated from what we actually know about the character of Ganesha, which emerged hundred of years after the epic period. Much of what we know about Ganesha is of a negative nature -- that is, he does NOT appear in texts dating from early periods, there is no statuary of him prior to the Gupta period, there is no evidence of a recognized Ganapatya cult prior to Shankara's creation of the worship of of five forms, etc. Please, please, can we turn to the books in the book list rather than web sites? There is a tendency on many of the Hinduism pages to use the term Vedic or even pre-Vedic to refer to speculations that have no historical basis whatsoever.
:Today I added three quotations from the academic literature that 1. explain the conflict between devotees and academic, 2. refute the common references to totems or tribal cults which sometimes are seen (as in the newspaper article that is being claimed as a reliable source in the article), and 3. add another example of an academic who has accepted the Vinayakas theory (more examples of agreement with that theory can be added, as it is the dominant current academic view). I will continue to add more references to this section that will gradually clarify what the Vedic claims actually are and why academics do not accept them. In matters of faith, all views must be respected. At the same time, we are writing an encyclopedia and not a piece of devotional literature, so it is important that we cite reliable sources. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
== Article length and dealing with the Puranic stories ==
As we overhaul this article we have made progress in getting the wonderful Puranic fairy tales into one clearly-defined area. Most of the stories given have no references, and represent variants of myths which often have many more variants in addition to those that are cited, sometimes incorrectly. I have added a general introduction that tries to focus the issue on the myths that are most prevalent. In order to reduce article length I think that some of the unreferenced material that is there now should be deleted entirely or significantly shortened, leaving only material that can be well-referenced and which is important to the main ideas. Many of these wonderful stories can be kept, but with shorter versions that are well-referenced. Overall article length needs to be kept in mind, as I notice that the editing interface has been giving warning messages to that effect. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:One problem may be that some of these stories may not be Puranic but rather developed from oral tradition. If that is the case, there may be no other alternative than to remove them at a later stage unfortunately. The redundant detail should go whether or not they are referenced. Once refs are found for most, if not all of the legends, then a [[Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha]] can be created where more detail is allowed. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 07:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::Great suggestion on creating a [[Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha]] article. I moved the unsourced material there for further work. That helps with article length quite a bit. It is easy to provide the Puranic citations for almost all of what is in there now, as most of it does have a Puranic source, but the problem is that there are many, many more Puranic variants in addition to the vast number of devotee stories that are of recent origin. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
== "History of Ganesha" ==
The article should clarify the difference between the history of Ganesha's popularity among his followers and the history of Ganesha's life (ie. biography) and significant incidents that have happened to Him according to the various mythological stories. In this sense, History is a bit vague so I suggest a renaming of the section heading. Btw Buddhipriya, you have done some astounding work so far and I hope in the near future the article can aspire to become a [[WP:FA|Feature article]]. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 07:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:A good suggestion on making sure that the sections are distinct. I renamed the history section to "Academic study of Ganesha's history" (which may be too long) to try to contrast more clearly with "Mythlogical anecdotes." The academic history section is now fairly complete, and I have replaced all of the unsourced or weakly sourced speculations with solid references in that section. The mythological section is the next to clean up, but now it on a separate article and so will be easier to focus on. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
: Can be also named "Origin Theories" as in [[Shiva]] article.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
== Check out this link ==
[http://www.intreview.com/article.php?id=90] This is an interesting summary of the Ganesh Mythos. I have read that I shouldn't add it to the external links section - I hope this is the right place to put it.
:Thanks for raising it here. The link is not noteworthy, as it does not cite any reliable sources. There are many, many such non-authoritative sites. Please check [[WP:EL]] for general guidelines on external links. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
== eldest or younger son of shiva. ==
Challenging this statement - "While he is popularly considered to be the eldest son of Shiva and Parvati, in Puranic myths there are several different versions of his birth".
In Brahma Vaitra Purana and Shiv Maha Purana, Ganesha is the second born son of Shiva. In Shiva Purana, there is a mention Skanda fighting with the child Ganesha who was guarding Parvati's quarters.
In Skanda Purana, after Sati's death, Skanda is born to kill Tarakasur ( who had destinied to killed by shiva' son and Shiva had no wife or child at that time. Parvati gets married to shiva but Ganesha been born is not mentioned.) thus, Skanda is Shiva' first son.
The Sanskrit epic Kumarsambhava(regarding the birth of Kartikeya) by Kalidas says that Kartikeya(Kumar) is Shiva's first son.
In Maharashtra too, it is 'popularly' believed that Ganesha is the youngest son of shiva.
But in Padma Purana, Ganesha is mentioned before Kartikeya implying Ganesha is elder.
i feel, the both opinions should be highlighted in the article.
--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 11:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for clarifying the different stories. Do you know what the major Ganapatya, Shaiva and for that matter all Hindu sects believe Ganesha? I believe it will differ between the sects and that can also mentioned. Hopefully Buddhipriya or Sd will add your additional information about Ganesha's birth/age. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, as the article says, there are many variants, and sometimes Ganesha is said to be the younger brother. One of his names in the Ganesha Sahasranama is Kumaraguru, which is interpreted to mean "Skanda's elder brother". We can certainly add more references to support both stories, but among Ganapatya I would say that it is more common to think of him as the elder. I do not have time to look up specific references right now, but if this is a concern we can get more in the next week. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 05:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::How can 'Kumaraguru' be intrepeted as "Skanda's elder bro"? it only means the Guru(teacher) of Skanda. A Guru is "elder" in knowledge not necessarily in age. The story of circling the globe proves Ganesha is wiser. As a reward, Ganesha is given the fruit of knowledge(in other versions, the hand of riddhi-siddhi).Thus he can(may) be considered elder in knowledge. The other version also supports the claim the Ganesha is younger - when Ganesha is married first, Kartikeya(Skanda) was angry with his parents and left Kailash for Krauncha mountain as he felt that Shiva-Parvati were unjust to marry Ganesha first although he was their elder son (as per tradition, the first-born is married first).To your ref to Ganpatya, like other sects like Shaiva, Vishanava, Shakti-upasaka who say their resp deity is greatest, same implys to Ganpatya. Also, i object to the word "sometimes" in 'sometimes Ganesha is said to be the younger brother'.i found only one ref for Ganesha to be elder while many others contradicting it. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
According to [[Murugan]] article, it is a south indian concept that Ganesha is elder and the reverse a north indian one.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia is not a [[WP:RS]] and we should avoid citing Wikipedia. It takes a bit more time to look things up in books, but they are a higher quality of source. Currently the article is very well-referenced and we need to keep a high level of sources, not degraded them to Wikipedia articles or self-published web sites. My opinion is that anything that cannot be well-sourced should be removed, with addition of well-cited material later. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
== God of (removal of) obstacles ==
Is Ganesha considered to be the "God of Obstacles" or the "God of Removal of Obstacles"? Instead of seeing it changed back and forth on the article, I'd like to start a discussion here, on the talk page. If he is the "God of Removal of Obstacles", the sentence "He can place obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked, and can remove blockages just as easily" wouldn't make much sense. Happy editing, ['''[[User:Sd31415|<span style="color: black;">sd</span>]]'''] 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
: Ganesha is 'Vigneshwara', lord of obstacles. "He can place obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked(evil) (or to test his devotees), and can remove blockages(created by evil) just as easily". He is worshipped as 'Vigna-harta', Remover of obstacles and not as 'Vigna-karta', creator of obstacles.
"God of Obstacles", i personally feel, has a neagative overtone. the title mostly indicates Ganesha' ability to create obstacles and not to remove them--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 12:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::He is very definitely "God of Obstaces" (Vignesvara). His ability to create obstacles is the reason why he is worshipped prior to any ritual, to placate him so he will not create a problem during the performance of an action. Changing it to read "Remover of obstacles" does not convey his function. His most common attributes for two paired hands are a noose (a snare, to impede) and a goad (to stimulate). Both functions are the core of his function in the system of devas. The sentence "He can place obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked, and can remove blockages just as easily" is correct and the short title should reflect names like Vighnesa (Obstacle-Lord), Vighnanayaka (Obstacle-Leader), Vighnaraja (Obstacle-King), all of which are based this. Vighna = obstacle, impediment. I have added three quotations from academic sources that explain this issue in more detail since it seems to be a point of interest. Ganesha is both vighnakartā and vighnahartā depending on need, as this quote from Yuvraj Krishhan specifically explains: "Gaṇeśa has a dual nature; as Vināyaka, as a grāmadevatā, he is vighnakartā, and as Gaṇeśa he is vighnahartā, a paurāṇic devatā." Krishan, p. viii. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
== Associations with dance and music ==
I have reverted an unsourced change regarding prayers to Ganesha prior to performances of the arts, not because the comment is necessarily untrue, but because it was ''unsourced'' and generalizes a single prayer to appear to be the only prayer used. My feeling is that since the article is now pretty well-sourced, we should try to take care in adding new material to be sure that it is well-sourced. Regarding the issue of the arts, in fact it would be possible to add a well-sourced section regarding the special connections that Ganesha has with the arts of music and dancing. Connections that could be built up here include his association as a dancer (Nṛtya Ganapati) and his special association with Sama Veda (the veda of chants) which are brought out several times in the Ganesha Sahasranama, and expansion of the etymology section to note the phonetic linkages between the words ''{{IAST|gaṇa}}'' {{lang|sa|गण}} (group, category) and ''{{IAST|gāna}}'' {{lang|sa|गान}} (song) which appear in wordplay related to him. Both words are transliterated as "gana" in simple English, erasing the fact that they mean entirely different things. :) So it is certainly true that he has associations with the arts. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:NRutta gaNapti.jpg|right|thumb|75px|{{IAST|Nṛtta Gaṇapati}} (Dancing Ganapati) as shown in the [[Sritattvanidhi]] (19th century)]] [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:Here is a picture of one of the 32 standard iconographic depictions of Ganesha, showing him dancing. Perhaps we could use this image somewhere. In this form he is called {{IAST|Nṛtta Gaṇapati}}. Check the article on [[Sritattvanidhi]] for more authentic images from that classic of iconography. Some other potential pictures would be showing him on his mouse, or riding upon a lion in his form as Heramba. Currently we only mention the mouse as mount because it is the best known, but he has other mounts as well, including a peacock (which he gave to his brother Skanda later according to one myth). Note that the automated peer review bot (below) turned up a possible copyright issue with the picture we are using now at the top of the article. Perhaps changing it to use a different image that has no cloud over the copyright would be good. The pictures from the [[Sritattvanidhi]] appear to be OK because they are so old, but I do not know much about the Wiki copyright rules.
== Automated Peer Review ==
I asked for an automated peer review of the article, and [[User:Shahab|Shahab]] was kind enough to run it for us. Here is the output the bot produced. I suspect that some of the comments related to language may have been triggered by Sanskrit terms that the bot was not familiar with. :) [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|javascript program]], and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at [[WP:LEAD]]; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#leadlong|[?]]]</sup>
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per [[WP:LEAD]]. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#leaddetail|[?]]]</sup>
*Consider adding more [[WP:LINK|links]] to the article; per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)]] and [[Wikipedia:Build the web]], create links to relevant articles.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#underlink|[?]]]</sup>
*See if possible if there is a [[WP:IT|free use]] image that can go on the top right corner of this article.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#leadimg|[?]]]</sup>
*[[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)]], avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
*This article may need to undergo [[WP:SS|summary style]], where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is [[United States]], than an appropriate subpage would be [[History of the United States]], such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#SS|[?]]]</sup>
*[[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either [[American and British English spelling differences|American or British spelling]], depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: ''honor'' (A) (British: ''honour''), ''honour'' (B) (American: ''honor''), ''behaviour'' (B) (American: ''behavior''), ''ization'' (A) (British: ''isation'').
*Watch for [[User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a#Redundancy|redundancies]] that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's [[User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises|redundancy exercises]].)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “<font color='red'><s>All</s></font> pigs are pink, so we thought of <font color='red'><s>a number of</s></font> ways to turn them green.”
*As done in [[WP:FOOTNOTE]], footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the [[The Chicago Manual of Style|CMS]], but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, ''the sun is larger than the moon [2].'' is usually written as ''the sun is larger than the moon.[2]''<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#footspace|[?]]]</sup>
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of [[WP:WIAFA|Wikipedia's best work]]. See also [[User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a]].<sup>[[User:AndyZ/G#copyedit|[?]]]</sup>
You may wish to browse through [[User:AndyZ/Suggestions]] for further ideas. Thanks, [[User:Shahab|Shahab]] 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
== Worship/festivals section ==
Generally speaking every sentence does not need a citation to back it up. But instances when they are almost mandatory are when statistics or quotes are used. One such unsourced quote is in this section ''It is widely believed that "Wherever there is Ganesha, there is Success and Prosperity" and "Wherever there is Success and Prosperity there is Ganesha".''
To be honest, the sentence isn't very controversial because what it implies would be universally accepted to be true. However, otherwise the quotation marks should go and the sentence structure is re-ordered, such as "Praying to Ganesha is often associated with success and prosperity." Then again, that kind of statement has already been indirectly said many times previously in the article. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:Good catch on the "success and prosperity" line, I just edited it as you suggested. That is a good example of something that is so widely known about Ganesha it would be hard to expect a challenge to it (except among some Buddhist traditions where he is considered a demon). Standards of referencing vary depending on the level of scrutiny an article is going to get. Generally the standard of referencing in the Hinduism articles seems poor to me. We should make an effort to raise the bar on standards for inclusion of content to prevent downward creep in quality once an article has become well-sourced. I would agree that certain general statements that are widely known or generally supported by the article itself do not need to be cited. However particularly when an article is under work it is helpful to have citations on any sentence that may move away from another citation that supports it. If I say that in Sri Lanka it is common to offer cheese to Ganesha, should that stay in? Have you ever heard it? It may be true even if you have never heard it, in which case a reference is needed to prove it (there is no such reference that I know of, by the way). I would encourage all the editors of Hinduism articles to think more critically about the content in these articles and demand the high standard of scholarship that is part of Indian tradition. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::I very much agree with you. An example Abecedare used on the Talk:India page about excessive sourcing was finding a reference for India being located in Asia. I suppose an example here would be that Ganapati (gaṇapati) is an alternate name for Ganesha but the English translation for Ganapati (Lord/Master of the ganas) would need to be sourced of course. <b><font color="teal">[[User:DaGizza|Gizza]]</font></b>''<sup><font color="teal">[[User_talk:DaGizza|Chat]]</font></sup>'' <sup><b><font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/DaGizza|©]]</font></b></sup> 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, the name Ganapati is so well-known it is hard to dispute. But if you recall, when I began working on this article, the etymology of the name was one of the first things we worked on. Remember '''''ga''''' + '''''na'''''? That is the sort of thing we find everywhere on the Hinduism articles. Even when references are given, most of them are to web sites of the most fantastic nature. One of my favorites is this example using the television program ''Ripley's Believe It Or Not'' as a reliable source on Sadhus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sadhu&diff=110762472&oldid=110762328][[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 00:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::: Anyone who has a basic knowledge of Sanskrit can confirm that Ganapati means Lord(pati) of ganas. Ganas are generally regarded servants of Shiva. the pati suffix is very common in Sanskrit. pati means 'lord or master or husband' depending on the context. like 'Gruhaspati' (head of family) means lord of the home, 'Pashupati'(a title of Shiva) means lord of the beasts but Laxmipati(a title of Vishnu) means husband of Laxmi.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
== Use of devotee and popular literature as sources ==
I notice that references to devotee literature such as Subramuniya and Navaratnam are being added to the article. It is good to see citations. These are examples of faith literature which often make statements that are not supported by reliable sources themselves. I think it is fine to include citations to devotee literature, but we need to be careful not to confuse them with academic sources. The devotee literature often makes interpretations of things such as the mouse that are speculative, and in conflict with other devotee sources. A full article could be written on the mouse giving a wide range of interpretations. In copyediting, we need to try to point out that opinions vary, and that devotee literature written from a point of view of faith has different approaches to the materials from those taken by comparative studies. In any case, can we get ISBN numbers or more citation detail for which editions of these works are being used? Is the Navaratnam citation to this editon or a different edition: Navaratnam, Ratna Ma, ''Aum Ganesha, The Peace of God''. Jaffna: Vidya Bhavan, 1978. Regarding Subramuniyaswami, he is associated with the Himalayan Academy, which has been the subject of some discussion on other pages. They are a sectarian religious organization that promotes a number of things where scholarship can be questioned. For example, Subramuniya's book claiming that "Lemurian scrolls" support his belief that human origins can be traced to space travel to Earth from the Pleiades millions of years ago. See: [http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/ls/]. I therefore object to the use of Subramuniyaswami as a [[WP:RS]] for any statement of fact regarding Ganesha, but I consider him an interesting source to represent a particular devotional opinion. Statements by him need to be prefaced by the fact they are coming from him. Introduction of this material raises the problems of pseudoscience that have plagued other Hinduism articles. Please, we must take care that it not be introduced here. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
== Edit of Lead ==
I just finished editing the lead of the article, (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganesha&diff=123714612&oldid=123703987 diff]) so that it is now orgainized as follows:
* First para: Who is Ganesha (i.e he is God of ... and represented as ...)?
* Second para: What is the history behind his development ?
* Third para: Who worships him ?
As such, I have not attempted to change the content of lead but only tried to make it flow better. The only sentence I intentionally deleted, or rather commented out, was the one defining [[Ishta devata]], which I thought was an unnecessary bit of terminology for the lead; note though that that the discussion about Ganpatayas who worship Ganesha as ''Ishta devata'' is still in there, though explained in plain English. I also worked in wikilinks to the "Mythology" and "outside India" articles into the lead. I tried to remove redundant repetitions of the fact that he is worshipped by various denominations, and tried to consolidate the various "areas that he is the lord of" into one sentence. <br>
Finally, I kept the dating of rise of Ganapatayas and the associated texts somewhat vague on intention, since I figure that these are points of contention which are better handled by the respective articles. Currently the lead only states that Ganapatyas arose sometime around 5-9th C which I think is pretty safe ground, right ? If we want to be a bit more committal about the texts, perhaps we can append the words "in the second millennium AD" after "...principal scriptures dedicated to his worship, the ''[[Ganesha Purana]]'', the ''[[Mudgala Purana]]'', and the ''[[Ganapati Atharvashirsa]]'', were produced".<br>
I did not access any of the 11 cited references while editing the lead, so Buddhipriya and others, please make sure that the citations are still accurately placed! If you have questions about any specific change I made, I'll be happy to clarify. And of course, if goes without saying that others should feel free to tweak stuff around, just as I did. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:Good work! I think it reads much better. I object to the use of a reference to Himalayan Academy Materials in the lead, however, specifically in support of the connection to the word "dharma" which is not widely used as one of his functions. I have discussed the problems with the source in the preceeding section. In addition, there is a disturbing use of both [[Ganesha]] and [[Hanuman]] by Indian nationalist extremists that the linkage to protectors of ''sanatana dharma'' invokes. In some extreme propaganda, both figures are shown in extreme martial forms, fighting for racial purity. Linkage to the word ''dharma'' in this way, which is not supported by general [[WP:RS]] should be removed from the lead. For recent use of Ganesha and Hanuman in this way, see: Martha C. Nussbaum, ''The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future'' (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007). ISBN 0-674-02482-6. We have put the least reliable reference into the lead and I feel it needs to be changed. Can other editors please comment on this? [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 03:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
== Is this evidence that the brothers had disputes????? ==
"A poem describes the two boys being asked about one of their dispute by their mother. Each of the two sons has unusual features, as shown in this passage:
O, Ganapati
What is it Mother?
Why are you crying?
Karttikeya is pulling my ears
What is this, Skanda? Why are you teasing him?
He first counted my eyes
O, Gajanana ("elephant-Face") this is not proper behaviour from you
He was measuring my trunk, mother mine
These two in one place, she observes and laughs
... And Shiva's consort is agitated.
May she protect you"
From the translation, i feel this is the verse " he Heramba Kim Amba...". These verse are called "Vak-padani Subhashitani" ( 'Subhashits' or verses on conversation). They are fiction(this should be clearly stated) and mostly end with '.... god protect you'(prayer style). this cannot be treated as evidence that the Shiva sons had disputes. Other examples are: "Kas-vyam Shuli..." regarding a instance when Parvati wittyly answers the door and doesnot take Shiva inside the house, ending with " let the defeated(by Parvati' wit) Shiva protect you"; "bhikshu Kyasti..." regarding a quarrel between Laxmi and Parvati about inferiority of the other' husband, ending with" let this conservation between the daughter of the ocean(Laxmi) and mountain(Parvati) protect you". this does not mean Shiva and Parvati had disputes or Laxmi and Parvati quarelled.
Also i failed to understand "Each of the two sons has unusual features". Big ears, long trunk and 12 eyes(6 heads) are usual featurs of Ganesha and Skanda resp.
Also in translation, who said what should given by name(maybe in brackets) for clarification. Since i know the verse i can make out but someone reads the translation for the first time may not be able to understand.--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This theme of disputes was first introduced using a reference to Naik (Naik, R. S.; Laxman Varma (ill.) (1985). Ganesh. Ahmedabad: Bharat Anada. (1995 reprint edition)., which I have not read and cannot locate among online booksellers. I would like to obtain a copy of Naik if possible. Is there an ISBN number for it? I would like to obtain a copy if possible so I can review it so I can understand if it is an academic work, a devotee publication, or whatever. The idea of the parents siding with one or the other boys has not come up before in my reading and I have not had time to search for that theme in other sources. The only other common myth about conflict between them that comes up often is the myth about competition for the wives, which is not cited here. We just removed a lot of mythological material elsewhere, and I hope we can keep this article relatively free of it, placing the myths in the other articles. The issue of conflict being a mythic representation of cultic tensions is cited by Gupta. The question of how the boys were identified as brothers could be explained by historical assimilation of both the Ganesha cult and the Skanda cult to the dominant cult of Shiva, and the gradual decline of the Skanda cult in the North. However this would all require more length, and the article is already just about at the length limit. The devotional poem is from a third source, and I added it to give a lighter balance to the historical reference. I will try to look over this issue in more detal but will not have much time today. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||