Talk:Ganesha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. 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. 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. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:59, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

You were right. I didn't know this meaning of to betray.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)? --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. --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. 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? -- Rohitbd

How interesting that the symbol of 9 also looks like an elephant when turned horizontally to the left:). --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!

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. -- 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. – 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. Sharma, Ram Karan (1993). Gaṇeśa Purāṇa. Nag Publishers. ISBN 81-7081-279-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help) 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. :) 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. Sfacets 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 {{fact}} 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. 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. 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 ! 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.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.

WillWare 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

He's not the most widely worshipped. Lord Vishnu is, seeing as to how most Hindus are Vaishnava. Armyrifle 00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Ganesha worship is compatible with that of other deities, in many rituals to other deities, Ganesha is honored at the very start to get the ball rolling. Historically this was done in order to propitiate him so that he would not place any obstacles in the path of the performance of the ritual, such as the priest forgetting lines, a wind blowing out the fire, or whatever. This was all derived from his early associations as Vighnakarta (Creator of Obstacles). In more recent times, he still has first place of order in worship and also in public performances of a non-liturgical nature, as the article explains. Schoolchildren write his name at the top of exam papers, for example, regardless of their denomination. They may be Vaishnava, but it can't hurt to ask Ganesha for a bit of help on an exam, as he is the Patron of Letters. The statement regarding his popularity currently has one reference on it, but I seem to recall we had more prior to the rewrite that was just done. I will have to check the edit history to see if any citations were moved. We can add more to support this point, as I expect it will come up again. Buddhipriya 06:10, 19 April 2007 (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.

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

Raj2004 00:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit

This article is missing the sanskrit writing --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? अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Have to eat...

back shortly...--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: DaGizza ^Chat 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Status: Compteled by User:Lacatosias. This might require a few days.

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.--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. 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. --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.--Lacatosias 11:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Republic Section

I have removed this section, for obvious reasons. 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?

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. 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.

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. 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! 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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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

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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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. 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.

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. --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 Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found 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 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 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. 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!!--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. 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.--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.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. --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? – 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. 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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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:गणेश पुराणम् 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. Buddhipriya 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha image

Jaya Ganesh

I have just uploaded this photograph should anyone wish to use it in the article. Best wishes, ys, 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.

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. Buddhipriya 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to 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. 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. 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buddhipriya (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC). 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.

For reference, here is the material that my fellow editor deleted:

The depiction of Ganesha as a family man includes a recent claim that Santoshī Mā, a new goddess of satisfaction, is his daughter. She emerged as a deity following the release in 1975 of the popular film Jai Santoshi Maa. 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 Ganesha Caturthi. But this is not the same myth as depicted in the film.

In the film Ganesha is depicted as a householder (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.

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. 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 peer reviewed 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". Sorry, I messed up all the familial relations :-)

In creating the film article, it would be good to follow the guidelines laid down at WP:INCINE. 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. 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Workie77 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

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. 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 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. 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. 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. Sfacets 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.

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.--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.

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)

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.

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.

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. 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.

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).

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.

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.

Both Ganesha and the Mooshak love modaka, 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 Maharashtrian art to depict Mooshak as a very large mouse, and for Ganesha to be mounted on him like a horse.

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.

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! 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. 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 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.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. 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 {{verify source}}." I will add that tag for now but please adjust as you think fit if there is better way that is considered collaborative. 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? 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. Buddhipriya 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The link adds a vast amount of useful information; per WP:EL:

1. 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.
2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

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. Sfacets 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 WikiProjectSpam. 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. Sfacets 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. Abecedare 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[1] 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. 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. 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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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. 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 Feature article. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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. Buddhipriya 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can be also named "Origin Theories" as in Shiva article.--Redtigerxyz 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out this link

[2] 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. 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.

--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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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. 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. --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.--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. 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, [sd] 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--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. 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 gaṇa गण (group, category) and gāna 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. Buddhipriya 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nṛtta Gaṇapati (Dancing Ganapati) as shown in the Sritattvanidhi (19th century)

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 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 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. :) Buddhipriya 19:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic 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.^[?]
• 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.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• This article may need to undergo 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.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either 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 redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's 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, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the 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]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahab 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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. 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. Gizza^{Chat ©} 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. [3]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.--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: [4]. 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. Buddhipriya 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded to my objection to the use of Subramuniyaswami as a reliable source, or to the idiosyncratic connection of the idea of Lord of Dharma to Ganesha by him. I have separated that statement out so that it can be examined in more detail by other editors. I am not aware of any general evidence that this view is common, and I do not think it should be in the lead, as it gives undue weight to a non-reliable source that is espousing a fringe theory. I ask that other editors please look closely at this issue.

Evidence that dharma is a fringe association is that the word dharma does not even appear in the following well-indexed academic reference sources: Brown, Courtright, Grimes. The word dharma appears three times in the index to Thapan, and in none of those pages is it associated in connection with Ganesha (it is used in general descriptions of other issues). Names of Ganesha that are plausible Sanskrit for Lord of Dharma (e.g, Dharmendra) are not listed in Martin-Dubost, which includes a glossary of many names appearing in the literature (with emphasis on the best-known ones). Martin-Dubost does not have as detailed an index to topics as the other reference works, but in general if something is discussed in the text it winds up in the glossary.

An additional proof is that other deities have attested claims as Lord of Dharma, including Vishnu. Dharmadhyaksha ("Overseer of Dharma", "Lord of Dharma") is an epithet of Vishnu that appears as name #135 in the Vishnu Sahasranama. Additional names of Vishnu that involve dharma are Dharma (#403), Dharmakrt (#476), and Dharmagupin (#475, translated by Swami Vimalananda as "Protector of Dharma"). Citations are to Swami Vimalananda. Sri Vishnu Sahasranama Stotram. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam: 1985 (no ISBN). The name Dharmadhyaksha as a name of Vishnu is mentioned in the Wikipedia article List_of_titles_and_names_of_Krishna, which I do not cite as a WP:RS but merely to show that the source I cited is consistent with what is there.

The deity that is most clearly established as the Lord of Dharma is Yama, who as the god of Death is the ultimate enforcer. Dharma is a name of Yama (citation for this is Apte, p. 522.). These references establish that even if one religious leader makes an assertion that Ganesha is Lord of Dharma, other religious leaders can equally claim that status for other deities. Buddhipriya 09:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit of Lead

I just finished editing the lead of the article, (see 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.
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".
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. 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? I request that the line about "protector of dharma" be moved to the talk page pending further discussion before it is used in the article. 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.--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. 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 agree that it is clearly of late composition and does not reflect any story of which I am aware in Puranic sources. I will try to look over this issue in more detal but will not have much time today. My general sense of this is that one approach in the short run would be to move all of the text regarding disputes to the talk page pending rework. I do not thing it is a major subject that needs to be in the main Ganesha article unless it is very well-sourced. However, other editors may feel strongly one way or the other, so let them chime in. Fortunately there are no emergenices on Wikipedia. Buddhipriya 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me comment since I added the reference. Naik maybe is a devotee publication, and suprisingly, it has no IBSN number (the only two things on the back are "Vedanta Society Bookseller" and a price). Looking back on this, the information is probably in Naik's point of view and I've removed it. However, there's evidence the brothers had disputes, since "Stories of the rivalry between the brothers may reflect historical tensions between sects. Prior to the emergence of Ganesha, Skanda had a long and glorious career as an important martial deity, from about 500 BC to about 600 AD, when his worship declined significantly in the North, almost synchronously with the successful rise of his rival Ganesha" is cited from another book. Happy editing, [sd] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been objection to use of this poem I am moving the text out of the article to the talk page pending further discussion about it. I agree it is of late compostion, but perhaps would be useful as color for the piece. However the article is long and we do not need it. I think the historical material related to the sects should remain, as it is well-cited and gives a clue to the deeper forces that shape these myths. Buddhipriya 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A poem probably of late composition describes the two boys being asked about one of their dispute by their mother. Skanda, who has six heads, and Ganesha have been teasing one another about their unusual features:

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.

That is the text at the time I removed it from the article. Buddhipriya 07:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Process for feedback on copyedit

Give a cheer for Galena11 who is joining the gang (gaṇa) working to improve the article. Here is what she has said she will do as a process: "I'll put the comments in the text, so that its easy to find them, and will recap them on the article talk page when I finish a section or when we get several to address, whichever comes first. I've put this article on my watch list, so I can keep track of the conversation and will discuss implementing any changes with everyone. Will that be OK?" It sounds great to me, but if other editors have suggestions about process please chime in. Buddhipriya 06:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Kumāras

The second last sentence in the lead talks about non-Ganapatya worship of Ganesha and mentions the Kumāras along with the more well known sects. Who are they? They don't seem to have their own Wiki page. I know Kumara/Kumar in Sanskrit and modern Indian languages literally means son, but in specific contexts the meaning ranges from prince to bachelor. Considering that they don't have a blue link, I request either a sentence of info is given about them here or even better, a separate page is started on them so we can blue-link it. Gizza^{Chat ©} 09:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Kumara is a name for Skanda, and I believe that the intent is to refer to devotees of Skanda (who has many regional names, as you know). I could be wrong, of course, as I really don't know anything about them. A name for Ganesha that appears in the Ganesha Sahasranama is Kumaraguru, which means "Kumara's older brother" in that context. I also had not heard of them before and do not know why they are being mentioned as notable, particularly in the lead. The sentence where they are mentioned was introduced as part of the same sourcing problem that I am objecting to above. So far we have done a good job with references, but as soon as the devotee literature is fair game to quote, anything can get into the article. Is there some way we can reach agreement on what sources are acceptable for use, and make the discussion revolve around reference quality? I think both this and the dharma issue are examples of WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Buddhipriya 09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing devotee literature is fine as long as it is stated that they are the beliefs of devotees and they may not conform with what academics and scholars believe in. The only other issue to consider is WP:UNDUE but other than that, I don't see it as a big problem. Sectarian notions just need to be pointed that they are sectarian notions. But the Kumara cult shouldn't be mentioned, especially since they don't even have their own Wiki article, of which there are 6,903,352. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that devotee literature is an interesting category of source. There are occasions when it is very useful, so long as it is put into proper context and not confused with academic material. Two types of problem seem to arise on many of the Hinduism pages that are due to it, however. One type of error is overgeneralization, such as undue focus on a particular point that may indeed be of importance to some sect or teacher, but which is not generally true of all devotees. The Hibiscus flower issue is of this type, probably due to some local practice or belief. Ganesha is generally worshipped with red flowers; red Hibiscus probably is preferred in some regions; this then goes into the article as "Ganesha is worshipped with Hibiscus flowers." True, but also with red roses if that is what the devotee happens to have, as Ganesha is generlly considered to be easy of approach and not very fussy about details of worship. A different type of problem entirely is the introduction of WP:FRINGE ideas and giving them equal weight with WP:RS. This creeps into many Hinduism articles constantly, and conflicts over Vedic dating are just one example. Characterizing a chief role of Ganesha as "Lord of Dharma" is a fringe statement. Proofs have been given above:

• The claim of Lord of Dharma is supported so far by only one source by a religious leader who also propounds Lemurian Scrolls, alien space travel, etc.
• The claim does not appear in recognized scholarly sources.
• Other Hindu deities such as Vishnu and Yama can show scriptural authority in their own tradtions for that title. (It is common for devotee literature to claim that their preferred deity plays the roles of others, and in advaita vedanta this is due to the fact that all are manifestions of the same Brahman. If you compare the major sahasranamas you find many names that appear as epithets of multiple deities. Finding a name somewhere in devotee literature does not mean that is a major association for the deity.)
• Promotion of the title in this article advances the cause of Hindu nationalist extremists, who use figures of Ganesha in propaganda as a defender of the faith.

As editors of Hindu articles, is this good enough for us to include the material in the lead? If tomorrow we have a claim that Ganesha's head represents the original form of the aliens who populated this planet, how would we handle it? Would we leave it in, pending further clarification, or would we move fringe claims out for further examination? Buddhipriya 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As DaGizza suggests, devotional/sectarian sources are fine as long as (1) we present them in context, (2) don't give undue weight to non-mainline opinions. I have therefore moved the "gaurdian of Dharma" statement to the worship section, rather than the lead and explicitly ascribed it to devotees. Is there a better source that we can cite for Ganesha being worshipped by Vaishanvas, Shaivas etc. ? I believe the statement is basically true but we should aim to replace the borderline sourcing. Abecedare 00:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can replace the borderline sourcing. In fact we may have had a citation there before, I don't recall. The sentence that is there now was added after the discussion about "Lord of Obstacle Removal", once again bringing in the "removal" theme as well as pointing to worship by multiple traditions. Those are two ideas and can be sourced separately. If we need a new section going into the "Lord of Obstacle Removal" claim we can add one. Buddhipriya 03:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I'm not sure if I understood everything you just said but I'll comment on what I understand.

• While devotee literature is welcomed, it has to be limited to mainstream devotees, ie. the four main denominations and the Ganapatya in this particular case. The only devotee commentaries that should be allowed are one from notable Hindu figures, eg. Adi Shankara

• Titles of Ganesha must be limited to the Ganapatya texts, including the Sahasranama (there are already 1000 there) and maybe the Mahapuranas and Tantric texts. This page shouldn't be a list of epithets anyway. We could create a list of names of Ganesha if we need to.

• Regarding the worship and prayer of Ganesha, unless there is a very notable practice (such as first deva to be prayed to and the Om Gam mantra), the article should explicitly say Ganesha can be worsipped in these ways, but not necessarily "commonly" worshipped. Of course, we can't add too many of these things in because the article will become bloated.

Btw if you think this page is bad, it is nothing compared to Shiva, which constantly says stuff like "Shiva is The Supreme Being, he creates Brahma and Vishnu..." without even mentioning "In Shaivism." At least Vishnu specifies the sects. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your approach as suggested above. Yes, the Shiva article is in need of a lot of work. I have a few citations I may be able to add there, but any attempt to raise the bar on these articles must be a group effort. We must all demand higher quality on these major articles. Buddhipriya 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Skanda or Murugan ?

Can someone please confirm which of these two names is more widely used in literature relating to Ganesha ? Of course, both these names (along with Kartikeyan) can be mentioned in the article, but IMO it may be better to link to the better developed Murugan article, rather than the Skanda stub. Any opinions/objections ? Abecedare 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides this article, they should ideally be merged into the one article. Alternative names should be redirects unless they have multiple meanings, in which case they should become disambiguation pages, such as Mahesha (a redirect) and Ganapati (a disambig). Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just proposed the merger. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Abecedare 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple regional names involved. The older names in Puranic sources are Skanda, which may be most common in the stories related to Ganesha, or alternatively Kartikeya which is a very old name with rich history. Murugan was a regional deity later identified with Skanda, I would say, but I need to verify sources. The citations in the literature of Ganesha most often refer to Skanda, which is what I recommend we use in the Ganesha article, with a note that there are other names. For example, the Skanda Purana is a souce for Ganesha stories. One way to quickly quantify relevance to Ganesha is to check the indexes for some of the standard works on Ganesha. In Brown the name Murugan appears once, Kartika twice, and Skanda four times. Thapan's index lists Murugan once, Kartikeya 8 times, including an extended discussion of him in relation to Ganesha that covers three pages, and Skanda is mentioned 12 times, including two extended sections on his relation with Ganesha that cover a total of 8 pages. Thapan notes other name variants in passing such as Kumara and others. Courtright's index mentions Murugan twice, Kartikeya once (and refers the reader to the main listing for Skanda), and Skanda is listed in the index five times, with extended material covering nine pages. Courtright lists the Skanda Purana four times, with detailed discussions covering 4 pages. In Grimes Murugan is not mentioned in the index, Kartikeya is mentioned seven times, and Skanda is not mentioned, but the Skanda Purana is mentioned twice in the index.

Having done this math, I have convinced myself (if no one else) that the best name to use within the Ganesha article is Skanda, with the link going to whatever page is least bad. Currently that seems to be the one named Murugan. Buddhipriya 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

As per your reasoning, I think it is fine to emphasize Skanda in this article. Especially if Skanda and Murugan are merged, the reader will be directed to the same place anyway else we can link to both articles. Abecedare 02:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I composed the above message before I saw your this edit. Guess we have a consensus :-) Abecedare 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the problem reference in the lead

There may have been an edit conflict, so I think I have not integrated the latest post on this issue yet.

I would like to parse this sentence in detail: 'Thus, Ganesha is propitiated as the 'Dispeller of Obstacles' by Śaivites, Vashṇavites, Śaktas, Smārtas, and Kumāras." I have been avoiding editing these marginal sources in the article, preferring to get some consensus on the talk page. This sentence is sourced from Navaratnam, Ratna Ma. Aum Gaṇeśa, the Peace of God. As I mentioned earlier, I have not seen this and cannot locate it via online booksellers. I see three distinct issues raised by this. 1. worship by Saivites, Vaisnavas, and Saktas. 2. worship by Smartas 3. the reference to Kumaras, and the characterization of Ganesha as "Dispeller of Obstacles". Points 1 and 2 are already covered in the article and can easily be strongly referenced. The reference to Kumaras is probably true, since almost all Hindus workship Ganesha, but it is unclear why that sect is being mentioned. The point being made is that Ganesha is very widely popular, and that his worship is compatible with other other sects. Other editors have proposed that we delete the Kumara reference and I agree. Point 5 is another effort to get in the idea of Ganesha as "Lord of Obstacle Removal", which was the subject of a prior discussion in the days prior to this sentence being added. It seems to be an attempt to once again get the concept in that people like the idea of Ganesha removing obstacles (which is certainly true). If this theme is of such interest, I propose that we expand a section in the article body to put more emphasis on the fact that Ganesha both places and removes obstacles. It would be better to talk this out here and get agreement on strategy that to try to "spin" the lead to just put forward his role as a remover of obstacles. I think we should also note that the continued appearance of this issue in edits suggests that the issue is of importance to that editor, and that we should engage in dialog about this point to be sure we are considering all points of view.

I propose that we parse these five concepts out individually, keeping points 1 and 2 with strong references added, and deleting the remaining points. Is there any agreement for this approach? Buddhipriya 03:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I made this edit, since I think it reflects consensus, and I want to get it done while the copyeditor is doing active work. The lead already had the following general sentence that is supported by strong references: "Worship of Ganesha is considered complementary with the worship of other forms of the divine, and various Hindu sects worship him regardless of other affiliations." At least in the lead I do not think further detail is needed. His connection as one of the five Smarta divinities is explained in the body of the text. Buddhipriya 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

About those hibiscus flowers

I removed the reference to hibiscus flowers that had been added to the image text because it is not clear to me why it is important to stress that particular flower. When the hibiscus first began to appear in edits, I added a citation regarding the fact that it is one of the red flowers used in worship. However the repeated emphasis on it is puzzling, as it is only one of many flowers that could be used. Is this point of particular importance? A general theme that is not in the article now but which could be added is that Ganesha is generally considered to be easy of approach, not fussy about details of worship. His approachability has been one of the keys to his popularity. It is true that he loves red, and two of his names in the Ganesha Sahasranama are Rakta ("The Red One"), and Raktambara ("Garbed in Red"). So anything red is likely to be pleasing to him. But he sees what is in the heart of the devotee and accepts even the simplest gifts, given without ceremony, with delight if there is love in the heart of the devotee. I hope that someone reading the article will not think they have to go get Hibiscus flowers to do puja. What if they do not grow in the devotee's region? Additional citations related to materials used in worship can be added if needed, but let's watch for overgeneralizations. If a reference is needed to prove that hibiscus flowers are used in his worship, cite Martin-Dubost, p. 216, bottom right corner, which provides a picture specifically mentioning their use. Buddhipriya 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha as guardian of Dharma

I think these edits by Buddhipriya are a nice bit of scholarship that establish convincingly that Ganesha is considered gaurdian of Dharma only by a non-notable minority. Also, the only source so far that mentions this trivia is not really a reliable one and the Sloka 22 that it cites is AFAIK the author's own composition! IMO, this means that the related trivia should simply be removed from the article and should not instead become the basis for expanded attention, because:

• Firstly, the added paragraph will rightly be considered original research⁺ on wikipedia since it is synthesizing information (and lack of information) from multiple sources to prove a point to the reader - a point that has not been directly discussed by an external authority.
• Secondly, we should keep in mind that the Ganesha article in a general purpose encyclopedia ,such as wikipedia, has readership who may have never heard of Ganesha or even Hinduism. Therefore our aim should be to write 200-300 sentences (that is what 30KB roughly translates into) on the topic that we deem capture the most important and relevant information that such a reader should know. As a corollary: any discussion between editors undertaken to decide what those few hundred sentences should be belongs on the talk page and not in the article.
• Since several dozen mainstream books (as noted in the articles references) have been written on Ganesha without space being devoted to argue that "Ganesha is not considered the guardian of dharma", clearly this topic would not be in the list of first 5,000 sentences on Ganesha, let alone the top 200 :-)

So IMO we should simply excise this whole topic from the article, and if editors wants to add back the "Ganesha is guardian of dharma" bit, as per wikipedia's verifiability policy, they are obliged to offer a reliable source for it. I won't delete the content myself for the moment, so that other editors have an opportunity to review and comment on the above points. Regards. +: in real life I usually find myself arguing that something is publishable only if it is original research but wikipedia, understandably, has to follow different standards :-) Abecedare 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support removing the whole dharma business from the article, but I request that another editor such as yourself do it, as I do not wish to appear to be engaging in an edit war on this topic. I agree completely with your above analysis. This claim regarding "Lord of Dharma" is so fantastic that no one has ever bothered to refute it before, as far as I can tell. For the record, almost all of the points I added to the article were first added here, on the talk page, in attempts to make the case here. If I have made a procedural error I apologize and ask that others help me learn better ways of handling such situations. +: In real life, I once had a teacher who would simply return a paper that lacked good citations without grading it, simply writing "try again" at the top. Wikipedia, understandably, has to follow different standards. :-) Buddhipriya 06:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the refutation out of the article to here for reference pending removal of the original fringe claim by some other editor:

This association with dharma is not a significant theme in Ganapatya literature, as proven by the fact that the word dharma does not even appear in the indexes to several standard academic reference works on Ganesha. Names of Ganesha that are plausible Sanskrit for Lord of Dharma (e.g, anything starting with "Dharma") are not listed in Martin-Dubost's glossary, which includes many names appearing in the literature (with emphasis on the best-known ones). Nagar's analysis of the most common epithets of Ganesha does not mention any that relate to the concept of dharma. The concept of dharma does not appear in any of the names analyzed by Krishan.. Of the thirty-two standard meditation forms for Ganesha listed in the Sritattvanidhi, none of them has anything to do with dharma. Other deities have better-attested claims as Lord of Dharma, including Vishnu, whose has the epithet Dharmadhyaksha ("Overseer of Dharma"). Another deity often named as the Lord of Dharma is Yama, who as the god of Death is the ultimate judge. Dharma is an alternate name for Yama.

Buddhipriya 06:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a hindu but i am intrested in your religon. How come my r.e teacher said thatGanesh (ganesha) is a blue elephant ??? urm in every picture i find his like a creamy colour  ??? so im confused ??? Thanx 4 readin dis comment

                     Phe

Copyedit questions

Hi everyone! I am copyediting this article and have agreed to post my questions here. I will put the section heading in bold heading level 4, note the paragraph and existing article text in italics, and list my questions after each. (Note that I've also inserted these questions as hidden comments in the text, for ease of reference.) Please reply here so we can reach consensus and I can put in the correct text, or, in the case of simple changes, feel free to make them yourself (just note here that you've made the change, so I don't try to). Thanks! Galena11 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, these questions are great! As a systematic way to check off these points as they are fixed, what seems easiest to me would be to keep a running list, systematically adding Open and Closed items. I added sections for Open and Closed to the list. As you get new points, please add them to Open Items, and if something is moved to Closed Items please verify that you think it is closed -- otherwise move it back to Open Items for more work. Will this system be OK for you? Buddhipriya 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me! Galena11 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Open Items

General issues

• I just noticed that we may not have standardized the terms used to refer to images, statues, and murtis of Ganesha. Has there been any standardization of this across other Hinduism articles? I can see that there could be variations in shades of meaning. The interesting word icon may not be used as frequently in academic Hinduism texts as in general English, but I am not sure. What associations does the word icon bring up, as opposed to image, statue, figure, etc.? Buddhipriya 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for the other Hinduism articles/texts, but Merriam-Webster defines icon as

1 a usually pictorial representation : IMAGE

2 [Late Greek eikOn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians

3 : an object of uncritical devotion : IDOL

Given these definitions, I don't think "icon" is the best choice for generically referring to representations of Ganesha. I think that "image" (defined as " reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing; especially : an imitation in solid form : STATUE") is probably the best choice, since it can refer to two- or three-dimensional renderings of Ganesha. Galena11 17:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Follow-up question: If there is a specific reference in the article to an image of Ganesha as a religious devotional item (rather than a general reference to images of Ganesha), murti appears to be the correct term. Is this right? Galena11 17:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see "image", "statue", or "depiction" rather than "icon". The term murti needs to be used with care, as it has two different usages in Sanskrit. It's general meaning is simply a "form, visible shape, body", but in a ritual it refers strictly only to certain images or statues that have been given special blessings and invocations in order to ritually "activate" them or imbue them as repositories for divine energy. In these ritual cases a murti is a "personification, embodiment" of a deity and as such is treated as equivalent to the deity. The same concept appears cross-culturally in the doctrine of transubstantiation, a Christian doctrine related to when bread and wine change their nature as part of use in worship. For these two meanings (and other shadings) for murti see Apte, p. 768.Buddhipriya 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Because I am not an expert in Hindu/Sanskrit conventions, if I see murti anywhere in the text I will put it in this copyedit questions section and you can determine if it is an appropriate usage of the word. And I think that if we generally stick to "image" (two-dimensional), "statue" (three-dimensional), and "depiction" (general/unknown dimensions) when referring to representations of Ganesha, we'll be covered. Of course, there may be exceptions to this general rule, which I will bring here if there are any questions. Galena11 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• What is the standard convention for highlighting the alternative names of Ganesha? They are sometimes in bold, sometimes in italics, and sometimes have no highlighting at all. Which convention should be used throughout the article? Galena11 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have figured out any standard yet. What seems best to you? Buddhipriya 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:MoS says of article titles and leads, "boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the title and any important synonyms (including acronyms)." In this article, however, these names appear throughout the article, not just in the lead. I suppose that the criteria would be whether every one of Ganesha's names is an "important synonym", or if only a few are? Regardless, the synonomous names should only be in bold once, and then in regular type in any subsequent mention. Galena11 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you do what makes sense to you, and we can learn by watching. The only case I would worry about would be to change a word used inside a quotation, which would violate academic integrity for citations. Buddhipriya 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course--quotations are sacrosanct. :o) Thanks! Galena11 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Should the spelling of Ganesha be consistent throughout the article? If so, references in the text to "Ganesh", "Gaṇeśa", "Ganesa", etc. (other than the "also known as" references in the lead and etymology sections) should be changed to "Ganesha", correct? Galena11 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the name "Ganesha" is mentioned, it should be spelled that way unless it is mentioned within a quotation, in which case the version of the name as used in the quotation should be preserved. "Ganesh" is a Hindi form of the Sanskrit name "Ganesha". The name Gaṇeśa is the formal IAST romanization of the Sanskrit word. Buddhipriya 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• IAST standards have come up in this discussion, so I am adding an open item here to keep track of the idea. There does not seem to be a lot of excitement about this issue, but I have tried to keep track of various threads that have come up related to IAST on this page. Buddhipriya 17:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Should there be standarization of the use of italics for Sanskrit words such as udara, etc.? I see variation in the article regarding how Sanskrit words are shown. And sometimes they are preceded by "Sanskrit:" as a label, sometimes not. Buddhipriya 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

(no new questions)

Etymology and other names

(none right now)

Iconography

• The statue | CLARIFY: is this referring to the statue shown in the photo, or to the Martin-Dubost statue? | REQUEST: is it possible to get a photo of the statue referred to by Martin-Dubost, to elminate this confusion?

I would love to upload the picture in Martin-Dubost if I could get a clue about the copyright issues. The picture that appears in the upper right corner of p. 213 of Martin-Dubost is picture 31 in chapter VIII. Photographic credits list "American Institute of Indian Studies, Ramnagar" as the source. I have never really studied Wikipedia policies on this sort of thing. Can anyone help me understand this case in particular? Buddhipriya 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Once again the question came up "how did he get the elephant head?" so I am putting a note about that here. We have gone over this quite a bit. I added some additional sentences summarizing variant versions of how he got the head. Obviously this is of interest to many readers. Buddhipriya 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Common attributes

NOTE: According to the WP:MoS, bulleted lists should be converted to paragraph format when possible/logical. I did so in this section.

• I rewrote the fourth paragraph to clarify the differences between the numbers of arms. Also, the original paragraph introduced the symbology of the item in the arms but didn't expand on them. If these symbols are different than those mentioned in the Iconography section, you might want to expand on that in this paragraph.

I do not understand this suggestion. Can you say it another way? I also am not sure what text you are referring to due to possible changes in content order that may have taken place.Buddhipriya 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• The name of Ganesha's fifth incarnation is Lambodara according to the Mudgala Purana. | CLARIFY: if Lambodara is the name of both Ganesha and his avatar, please clarify as you have done in the preceding paragraph.

I rephrased the sentence, so please check if it now addresses this issue adequately. Buddhipriya 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• representations as Heramba-Ganapati | TRANSLATION?

There is no simple way to deal with a translation for "Heramba" because several alternate opinions exist regarding what the name means. My own opinion of the various sources is that the best simple translation would be "Bellower" (following an etymology of the interjection he (which means "Oh!" or "Hey!") + the root ramb which is related to the idea of "roar". In modern Sanskrit heramba means "buffalo" or "boastful" but these translations do not have any good association with Ganesha in particular. If I cite one meaning I will need to cite a couple of sources, I think. The syllable he (हे, pronounced like the English word "hay", as in "haystack") is associated with Shiva, so Apte (p. 1031) cites a derivation हे शिवे रंबति रंब्-अच् अलुक्समा which could be translated to mean that "he roars Hey! before Shiva, thus is called Heramba". I think it would be best to say something like "a name of uncertain origin" because there are multiple conflicting views. Buddhipriya 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed Items

Lead

• Somehow the references related to the dating of the Ganapatya were mixed up with dating for the three main scriptures. I adjusted the citations so they now correctly support dating of the sect, and will add references related to the three main scriptures. Note that the scriptural dating is a matter of some controvery. Buddhipriya 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since dating is now footnoted in the body of the article, do footnotes need to be applied in the lead? Or is this item now closed? Buddhipriya 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied that this is  Done. Galena11 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology and other names

• and devis (female deities) | RELEVANCE? I believe that Ganesha is primarily rendered as being male, therefore, I think this reference to the female is just adding "wordiness".

 Done I cut the sentence, which was not needed. Buddhipriya 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• (Ganapati) is a synonym, | CLARIFY: a synonym of what? "Lord of Hosts"?

 Done Ganapati is a synonym for Ganesha. Edited to make this explicit. Buddhipriya 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• In Tamil country | CLARIFY: not sure what this means--does this refer to the language itself, a people, or is this word only defined this way in an actual geographic regions? Therefore, should this be "In Tamil" (the language), "In the Tamil region" or "In Tamil regions" (region/s populated by Tamils), or "In Tamil-speaking regions"?

 Done The phrasing "In Tamil country..." was a direct quote from Narain. I found a second reference in the glossary of Martin-Dubost. It is the Tamil language for sure. I rephrased and add a second reference to Martin-Dubost. Buddhipriya 02:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• being a compound composed of गण + पति (pati, ruler or lord). | CLARIFY: Please include English translations for both components of these words in Indic text.

 DoneI added translations for both words and deleted the Devanagari, leaving only IAST. Please give feedback on your ability to see the IAST. Buddhipriya 02:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• joining the words gana (Sanskrit: गण; gaṇa) | CLARIFY: please correct the "blank" that is being substitued for letters.

In your comment "joining the words gana (Sanskrit: गण; gaṇa) | CLARIFY: please correct the "blank" that is being substitued for letters." can you please clarify what you mean by "blank"? I am wondering if your browser is configured to display Indic text correctly. If not, you may see either blanks or small boxes in place of Devanagari writing, or the IAST romanization. Correct display requires Unicode which is handled differently by various browsers. Buddhipriya 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am seeing these as a box, but the reason I noted it is that it is inconsistent. For example, I think that the letter n with a small mark beneath it displays in the first couple of instances of "gana" but not in these. If this is simply the issue of my browser (IE 7), then I will cease noting them. Galena11 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to nail down exactly what rendering issues you are having so they can be handled precisely. IE7 should have no problem with the display so long as you have the correct settings and a Unicode font on your system that includes the necessary Unicode ranges. Would you please visit Help:Multilingual support (Indic) and check the section for your operating system in order to examine some basic settings that may affect your reading experience? Since your rendering support may differ from mine, your reporting of what you are seeing is helpful. You mention seeing "the letter n with a small mark beneath it" which is IAST romanization (shown here: ṇ) for Devanagari (shown here: ण्). Do you see the characters where I have typed them next to "shown here"? Your answer will help me understand your rendering. You may have uncovered an important point about usability. Note to editors: The IAST tag was recently upgraded specifically to address a bug in IE7 rendering. If Indic text is included in the article without an IAST tag, the symptom that Galena is reporting can occur. If this is it, the problem may be due to failure to have IAST tags on some words that include Indic text. Buddhipriya 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've tested this and here are my results: 1) I patched IE 7 and it is now rendering all of the characters. 2) We use IE 6 at work, and so I looked at the article and the "boxes" display in the article when using IE 6. I can't really mess with my settings on my work computer to test the fix you recommended above. 3) Firefox does not appear to have any issues rendering the text. Galena11 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds encouraging. I do not have any data on the prevalence of browsers but IE7 was aggressively pushed out to home users via the Microsoft automatic patch program, and was also widely implemented in many corporate environments due to security issues. All new Vista systems being sold are supposed to work transparently with Indic text. Firefox does not seem to be an issue either. So long as IAST text is wrapped in an IAST tag, the majority of browsers should see it. I am wondering if any other editors have an opinion about this, however. We have not got any standards about use of IAST and efforts to get discussions about it going generally clear the room pretty fast. Buddhipriya 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we move these items to "closed" and you can open a new thread for the IAST standards either here or in the proper forum? Galena11 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The name Ganapati (Sanskrit: गणपति; gaṇapati) | CLARIFY: please correct the "blank" that is being substituted for a letter in the last word.

• (aṣṭavināyaka) | CLARIFY: please correct the "blank" that is being substituted for letters.

Iconography

• He may be portrayed standing, dancing, taking heroic action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down, or engaging in a remarkable range of contemporary situations when depicted in festival displays. | CLARIFY: what is the "festival display" comment modifying? does it refer only to the contemporary situations, or to any of these postures?

 Done I cut the phrase about festival displays as it is not needed. Buddhipriya 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• the right upper arm holds an axe and the left upper arm holds a noose | QUESTION: What's in the other arms?

I find it difficult to see the lower arm detail well enough in this picture to identify them unless I make projections into the image based on what I know from other sources. The gesture of the trunk to Ganesha's left lower hand probably indicates that the lower left hand contains something tasty which he is sampling. If this is correct, the standard attribute for the lower right hand could be his own broken tusk. I hesitate to guess in the text however. Buddhipriya 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • from the early medieval period | DATES: what dates are included in this period?

 Done Dates have been added. Galena11 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• • and holds some form of tasty delicacy | REDUNDANT?: "tasty" is somewhat redundant and subjective

 Done Redundant POV word "tasty" has been deleted. Buddhipriya 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• A more primitive statue in Dashavatara cave, Ellora, | CLARIFY: From what I can determine, the Ellora Caves are an example of ancient Indian rock-cut architecture. I'm having a hard time finding a reference for Dashavatara as a place or proper name, as is indicated by the capitalization. I did find a reference to "dashavatara" as the word for the ten avatars of Shiva. Without more information, its hard to understand why/how these go together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galena11 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The Dashavatara cave is one of the particular caves at the Ellora site. See: [5] and [6]. The Sanskrit word Dashavatara literally means "ten avatars" (dasha + avatara) and may be used in other senses as in the article on avatars of Vishnu that you mention. The source I cited for this probably mentioned which cave it was from in order to help pinpoint dating of the item. This may be a detail that the average Wikipedia reader does not need to know. Buddhipriya 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 DoneI removed the reference to the specific cave and added a link the article for Ellora Caves Buddhipriya 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• in his left hand | QUESTION: should this be lower-left? and the left hand raised holding a sweet are particularly archaic features. | CLARIFY: is it the left hand in particular, the position of the hand, the sweet itself, or the combination of all three that are "archaic"?

It is not explicitly mentioned in the source cited, but from a broad sense of these images I would say that it is the combination of all three factors that are distinctive. The direction of the trunk is used as one classification element for Ganesha images, and action of touching the sweet is also diagnostic. The sharp bend, almost a right angle, is noteworthy, as I think it is the combination of all these things that the source is trying to draw attention to. However this is my personal interpretation of what the source says. If you feel we need more clarification or more sources, please advise and I will do a search. Buddhipriya 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 DoneI rewrote the sentence to clarify that it is the motif that is the giveaway. Note that in describing these images when saying "right" or "left" it is good to say if you mean the deity's left or right, or the viewer's perspective ("E.g., Ganesha is holding a sweet in his left hand, seen here to the viewer's right.") Buddhipriya 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• This statue has four arms | QUESTION: is this the usual number, as is inferred by the "this statue features the most universal elements"? Or can he have any number of arms, and this particular one has four?

Note the section on number of arms which is lower down in the iconography section. As noted, the images may have varying numbers of arms. If this is unclear, should the material on numbers of arms be repositioned from where it is now? Buddhipriya 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done I think that the current sentence referring to this in the paragraph is suffcient. Galena11 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Common attributes

• A hand turned towards the devotee is often in the gesture of protection or "no fear" (abhaya mudra). | MOVED to last paragraph of Iconography section. Also removed "devotee", as it assumes that all viewers of any given Ganesha image are his devotees.

I rephrased the sentence in its new position to give more emphasis to the continuity of the modern depiction with the old form. Buddhipriya 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good.  Done Galena11 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• but specific forms have other colors | VAGUE: Please give specific examples or remove this phrase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galena11 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I added two examples of other colors and added a link to the Sritattvanidhi which gives details on 32 standard iconographic forms that are still in popular use. Buddhipriya 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK.  Done Galena11 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• The earliest Sanskrit name referring to Ganesha is Ekadanta (One Tusk), referring to his single tusk; the other is broken off…According to the Mudgala Purana, the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. | CLARIFY: is this the same as the Ekadanta mentioned in the first sentence (in which case, this is redundant)? Or are they two different aspects of Ganesha that are referred to by the same name?

Both refer to the same attribute. The fact that he has only one tusk comes up repeatedly as a theme in names, in iconography, and in stories about him. Buddhipriya 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Galena11 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note recent edit activity

I suggest that editors watch for possible political propaganda and/or sock activity both on Ganesha and Ganesha outside Hinduism.

• This unsourced claim of a connection between Janus and Ganesha just made by User:Gv365 ([7]) is specifically refuted on the article for Ganesha outside Hinduism. A current version of that article containing the refutation appears here.
• The original claim regarding the two-headed Janus was added to Ganesha outside Hinduism by User:Redtigerxyz in this edit [8].
• User:Redtigerxyz was the subject of impersonation by Maleabroad via the sock User:Redtigerxyz1. To be very clear, I am not accusing User:Redtigerxyz of being a sock of Maleabroad.
• User:Redtigerxyz1 was confirmed to be User:Maleabroad as a result of a checkuser request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Maleabroad .
• User:Randomatom001, another sock of User:Maleabroad, has been active on Ganesha outside Hinduism. , as shown by this sample diff: [9].
• User:Gv365 also makes unsourced claims regarding a Vedic Ganapati : [10]. These claims are specifically refuted in the current version of the Ganesha article.
• User:Gv365 makes unsourced claims that Ganesha was "leader of the guardians and other security troops", themes which are connected to the use of Ganesha by extreme militant nationalists, as was just discussed in connection with the Lord of Dharma claim: [11]
• The use of both Hanuman and Ganesha for militant nationalist propaganda as "protector of dharma" has previously been noted here.

Buddhipriya 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are particular sections of this document which are under active (i.e., contested) revision, it might be better for me to wait to copyedit them. I'm happy to review any (relatively) stable sections, but please tag and/or advise me of the sections I should hold off on. Galena11 18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As of today I am not aware that any of the sections are contested in particular. We had a little flurry related to a particular couple of weak sources. I have been trying to follow your edit path to strengthen material that I notice after you have worked on it, so some things may expand in your wake. I assume that is OK, but you prefer a different process please advise. The issue of the iconography triggered an expansion of the section on vahanas, because the article was only mentioning the best-known one associated with Ganesha (the mouse). Buddhipriya 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Its fine for you to make changes after I've c/e'd, of course! Once I've reached the end of the article, I'll do one final pass to proof any changes you've made. Galena11 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! And after that, I hope you will watchlist the article so you continue on as a permanent member of the editing team. Buddhipriya 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

error reaching an external link

I am unable to reach the following site which is now listed in the external links: 108 names of Ganesh and meanings. Last time I looked at it I was unable to determine where the name list it provides came from. I recommend that the site be removed from the list of external links. A better name list, including a complete version of one of the two Ganesha Sahasranamas, is available on this other site which is already included in the external links: Ganesh: Symbol and presence. I have verified that the sahasranama given there is generally consistent with what it claims to be, based on other sources. So removal of the first site is not critical to the name issue, which is the only thing it claims to cover (without citing any WP:RS. Buddhipriya 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The site is back up now, so that is not the issue. I still think the site should be deleted because it cites no reliable sources and the selling of puja services constitutes a commercial spam link. Buddhipriya 06:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No one objected to removal of the site selling puja services, so I removed it. Buddhipriya 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Myth and legend

This is turning into a really excellent article. There's only one thing that confused me. I was looking for the stories of how Ganesha received the head of an elephant. It took me a time or two through the article to realize that the wikilinked "mythological anecdotes" led to a separate article with those stories (rather than to a general article about 'mythological anecdotes'). I think many people will be looking for those stories and also be confused.

I noticed that the Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha article used to be part of this article but was considered too long. I think it's too important to remove it altogether. I suggest a section titled something like "Myth and legends" that briefly touches on the fact that there are various stories and legends about Ganesha, his birth and life. And then have a link there to the "main article" with those stories. Further, the term "anecdotes" sounds unencyclopedic, or too casual, or something. "Legends of Ganesha" might be better.

My apologies if this has already been discussed ad infinitum. Great work on the article. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in! Yes, this has been discussed at great length already, but it looks like we need to keep working on it some more. The problem is that there are many variant stories about how he got the elephant head, which is what we say now in the article. We have been trying to keep the article length at the cutoff for where the Wikipedia editing interface complains that it is too long, and currently it is under that limit (previously it was over the limit). I will put this issue in as an open issue under the copyeditor's worklist so we do not forget to look at it. Buddhipriya 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See also list versus link farm

For discussion about whether or not the See also list should include links to articles that are mentioned in the body of the article, see: Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#See_also_and_repetition_of_links_in_article. I have gone back and forth in my own thinking about this and now lean toward cutting back the See also section to comply with the general idea that if an article has been mentioned in the body of the text, it does not need to be in See also. What do others think about this? I installed a draft of a Ganesha navigation template that may be useful on other Ganesha pages. Would this type of template be a good alternative for the See also list? Buddhipriya 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vighneshwara - Remover of obstacles

Under the beautiful picture of Ganesha it is written God of Obstacles. Well, I always knew that Ganesha is a Remover of Obstacles vighna-nashaka never creator of Obstacles as it appears! This might be a literal translation of vighneshwara. Here I understand that ishwara means controller - one who has powers to remove the obstacles. – Apnavana 14:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Both placing and removing obstacles are key functions of his, as the text of the article explains. There are some detailed quotations regarding this in the text. People like to think of him as removing obstacles, but often forget who put them there in the first place. :) Buddhipriya 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never particularly liked the Hindu gods template on this page (and elsewhere) because of the gross simplifications it involves. Ganesha has multiple functions and associations, and while "God of obstacles" is correct, it has been a point of contentional again and again because so many people are mainly thinking of him as a god of "good luck" or something along those lines. Other aspects of the template seem oversimplified as well, such as the section on consorts which has no place for the alternative view that he never married. "Affiliation: deva" has always struck me as sounding like a baseball card or video game character grouping. At any rate, I would like to adjust the template simply to get rid of the "God of X" category to see how that would look. Does anyone feel strongly about this? Other devas are just as oversimplified, e.g. Shiva which calls him the Destructor in the Trimurti, a grouping which I have recently challenged as a largely Western way of thinking about the devas. Is it time for the template to be rethought across the board? Buddhipriya 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

People like to think of him as removing obstacles, but often forget who put them there in the first place. :) Aside the intended joke, I would like to believe that obstacles are created by man by performing wrong karma and finding the difficulties he prays to God for removal which God does out of His infinite grace. I have not come across a single epithet conveying the meaning of creator of obstacles in his 1000 names! God of wisdom could be a better substitute, I feel. As regards Template, yes, I agree with you that the time has come for a rethought. Many scholarly editors are coming in and process of change must continue. – Apnavana 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

this was discussed before at Talk:Ganesha#God_of_.28removal_of.29_obstacles. Apnavana i felt likewise but others felt otherwise.--Redtigerxyz 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha's function as Vighnakarta is documented by the citations now given in the article, and more can be added if this is a matter of continuing interest. His origin in intimately bound up with his role as an obstructor of sacrificial activity, which is why he is invoked first in hopes that he will not create problems in the performance of the rite. The introduction to the Ganesha Sahasranama as given in the Ganesha Purana I.46 tells the story of how Shiva was about to fight the demon Tripura, but was not successful in his attack. Shiva realized that the reason for his failure was that he had forgotten to pray to Ganesha prior to the attack. Upon recognizing this error, he invoked Ganesha, who appeared before him and recited his own thousand names for the benefit of Shiva as a mantra which he could use for success in the battle. After completing this devotion, Shiva tried his attack again and achieved success. So the ability of Ganesha to impede success is the fundamental backdrop to the story of how the sahasranama was given. This version is from the recension provided in Sharma (1993). the name Vighnakṛt (Creator of Obstacles) appears in verse 51 of the sahasranama. Buddhipriya 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the tag at top appropriate?

I've never seen it used before.--0rrAvenger 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Which tag are you referring to? Buddhipriya 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Copyleague of editors".--0rrAvenger 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean the top of the article.--0rrAvenger 02:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have a question regarding your edits. You changed the "worshipped" to "worshiped". Why is this being written American style? And second, regarding "iconographic". Either way is grammatically correct, but I wasn't sure on what was being intended in terms of interpretation. "Iconography elements" would mean elements of iconography. Iconographic elements means elements of an iconographic nature. To which one is it referring? Thanks.--0rrAvenger 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the League of copyeditors, the article is currently being worked on through a formal editing process involving one member of that group. The process will probably take another month, as it is being done in stages.

My understanding is that the spelling "worshiped" is US English, and previously the many references to "worshipped" were not spelled that way. So I restored the edits done by someone else to the previous stable version which used "worshipped". I suppose either could be used, but let's get some opinion on this from other editors. Regarding "iconographic", it was being used as an adjective modifying the noun "elements", that is, elements which are iconographic in nature. Do you feel this is an important point semantically? Buddhipriya 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, and I don't intend on changing it back ;).--0rrAvenger 03:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remover of obstacles again

Once again the same editor has raised the same "Remover of Obstacles" issue that has been discussed at length on the talk page and which is refuted in the article text: [12]. I ask other editors to examine this edit and comment if this is becoming a POV issue. Buddhipriya 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We also have the dubious "God of Wisdom and Plenty" that has crept into the template, sourced by some unclear item. Can some of the other editors please look closely at this strange claim added in this edit: [13]? Buddhipriya 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed material

Another editor has added the following material sourced by some general book which is not specifically about Ganesha:

He is the counterpart of the Greek god Hermes and the Roman deity Mercury.

I think this information is dubious and should be removed from the article. It is not sourced by a reference work on Ganesha, but from a general book and the soucing used for that book regarding Ganesha is not clearly identified. Unless some confirming source can be found in a WP:RS specifically related to Ganesha, I consider this WP:FRINGE material that requires sourcing according to the policies for fringe statements. Is there any objection to moving this statement to the talk page pending stronger sourcing? Buddhipriya 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the quality of the sources that have been added regarding this: [14]. All of them should be removed, and the tendency to degrade the source quality was previously discussed when the the "Lord of Dharma" nonsense was refuted. This is the same pattern of use of WP:FRINGE material that needs to be challenged. Do any of the other editors see this as a problem as I do? Buddhipriya 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has replied to my challenge of this disputed material that is sourced only by weak sources, so I am moving it here for further discussion. These strange claims appear only in marginal sources, and I am explicitly asking for some discussion about source quality:

He is the counterpart of the Greek god Hermes and the Roman deity Mercury.

There was previously a claim made that Ganesha is the counterpart of the god Janus, an equally strange claim that has been systematically refuted in the article where that claim was made. (See: Ganesha_outside_Hinduism#Speculation_related_to_Janus) In order to have a WP:RS for this type of cross-cultural claim we need to see sources that that have strong academic sourcing both in Ganesha studies and in Greco-Roman mythology, and the sources put forward meet neither test. Refuting a WP:FRINGE theory is problematic because when a fringe claim is made, the claim may be so strange no one has bothered to refute it. The guideline for WP:FRINGE material is that strange claims require strong sources. This is a good opportunity to ask other editors if the want to keep standards high for this article, or let the decline.

I just did a quick index check on several of the strong Ganesha reference works currently used in the article and cannot find any reference at all to Mercury, even to dispute it, so this claim is even more of a fringe item than the Janus claim, which is at least mentioned (for purposes of refutation). I would like to know specifically what primary sources, if any, are mentioned by the weak secondary sources used as references in the above statement. That is, upon what citations do the authors of the above weak sources rely in making this claim? Buddhipriya 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

one ref i found on the internet books[15]which can be verified. it says that Ganesha's European counterpart is Hermes.--Redtigerxyz 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort in trying to locate sources. However the issue is not whether or not you can locate such sources, but the quality of the sources. That is what I am trying to get discussion about. Regarding the cross-cultural material in general, which may be an interest of yours, a problem is that some of this may be pure speculation rather than anything that can be proven to be true. Following a chain of citations backwards to try to determine the original source for some of these concepts is what I am trying to do. Since there seems to be no mention of Mercury in any of the strong sources on Ganesha that are already used in the article, it seems strange to see this idea popping up in books which do not cite any of those solid sources. If we can trace back to who originally said this, we may have something we can mention in the form "Mr. X said..." if it can be shown that this strange idea has become notable because it has influenced pop literature. But we still need to find some sort of academic sourcing for it. The Internet book you just referred to does not cite any source whatsoever for the Ganesha statement, so it is useless for tracing the claim. It is not a WP:RS for the subject of Ganesha. Buddhipriya 10:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More disputed sources

I am moving the following disputed material to the talk page as it represents a continued effort to get the "God of Plenty" idea into the article using sources that are not WP:RS for Ganesha. It is not clear to me why an Indian wildlife guide must be consulted as a WP:RS for this material. There is also a devotee publication being used, and in the previous discussion about "Lord of Dharma" we agreed that devotee material of this type do not have the same standing as WP:RS as academic publications. We are seeing an attempt here to degrade the source quality for this article, and I ask for opinion by other editors if this is acceptable. Here is the material I am disputing:

God_of = Wisdom and Plenty

We have seen over and over the repeated attempt to change the tag line on the main Ganesha deity box, and this is just one more pass on the same thing. Buddhipriya 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone objects to just

God_of = Wisdom

? Primarily Ganesha is the god of Obstacles,Wisdom and good beginnings. Obstacles and Beginnings are covered in Hmytho box.Adding god of Wisdom.--Redtigerxyz 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious source

I am moving the following devotee interpretation here so the source can be examined. Somehow this got into the article with no close examination, and the source does not appear in the References, all of which have been looked over. This source does not seem specific to Ganesha, and the particular devotee view expressed may be better-sourced from another work if this idea is considered notable. Do other editors feel that some expansion of what the article already says about multiple devotee views is needed? Here is the material sourced by the source I am challenging:

David Brown provides another interpretation:

In reality, it (vahana) also tells us about the nature of the God concerned. Thus, to take a different example, Ganesha, the god of enterprise, has rat as his vahana precisely because the rat is viewed rivaling the god in his ability to past any obstacle.

Buddhipriya 05:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not devotee literature. E-link to the book is given.[16]--Redtigerxyz 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the book is by someone who has no qualifications on the subject of Ganesha. He is not a specialist in Ganesha studies, and sampling the text suggests that he knows little of Hinduism. The book is not a WP:RS for the subject of Ganesha. If there is a desire to source the idea that the mouse represents what he says it means, I can probably find some source that discusses that idea that would be considered a WP:RS for purposes of this subject. Just because something has been published in a book does not make it reliable. Many books on "spiritual topics" contain a great deal of nonsense. This author is not qualified to have a reliable opinion on this subject and is simply repeating something he got somewhere else. the quotation I cut appears on page 101 of the book, where it appears with no footnote showing the source of the story. A few lines down, the author apparently can't even spell the name of Shiva's vahana correctly, listing it as "Nadi" instead of "Nandi". That does not inspire confidence in this lightweight source. Buddhipriya 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I have mixed feelings about this one:

• On the one hand the book is written by an academic (though not a specialist in this area), published by a reputable publisher (OUP), and was favorably reviewed in The Journal of Theological Studies.
• On the other hand, this is just a throw-away line in a book whose central subject is not Ganesha - unlike several of the books cited in the reference, which thus count as much more authoritative sources.

Perhaps a compromise would be to cite Prof. Brown's opinion, but without giving it undue prominence accorded by colored box. Say, something along the line:

David Brown hypothesizes that a vahana reflects the nature of the concerned God, and "Ganesha, the god of enterprise, has rat as his vahana precisely because the rat is viewed rivaling the god in his ability to get past any obstacle."

I have corrected the quote by readding the word "get"; please feel free to tinker with the exact language. Also, now that we have two "Brown"s being used as ref, we should make sure that we disambiguate them properly.
Unrelated comments:

• Instead of using <blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;"> code, can't we simply use the {{Quotation}} template, which also allows us to name and cite the quoted author/work along with the quote ?
• Vahana need not be capitalised; also AFAIK it has not been been adopted in the English language (unlike terms such as Vedas, Brahmin, Sadhu etc) and therefore needs to be in italics (I know this is mentioned in WP:MOS somewhere). Abecedare 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with that approach, which would give WP:UNDUE weight to the least reliable source on the subject of the mouse by making it the highlight of a quotation, partcularly since the notion conflicts with more scholarly opinion on the subject. I continue to object to the source itself as non-notable for the subject of Ganesa. The author cannot claim any particular expertise on the subject, and the obvious error on the same page shows his lack of familiarity with the field. If it is desired that we do an expansion of various points of view about the mouse, we can increase the size of that section by doing a quick review of what the best sources say on the subject. Is that an acceptable compromise? Buddhipriya 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya, I think you misread my comment. "... which would give WP:UNDUE weight to the least reliable source on the subject of the mouse by making it the highlight of a quotation, particularly since the notion conflicts with more scholarly opinion on the subject." is exactly what I stated when I said, "Perhaps a compromise would be to cite Prof. Brown's opinion, but without giving it undue prominence accorded by colored box." (emphasis added). For clarity I merked my last two bulleted points as "Unrelated comments", but perhaps I should have placed them a new section altogether. So we don't disagree after all, do we ? Abecedare 02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear: I am suggesting that we use {{Quotation}} template for all the quotes that we do want to highlight in this article, and not the Brown vahana quote, which can just appear inline. Abecedare 02:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for misreading your comment. Of course you are correct that we have said something similar regarding the quotation. I continue to be uncomfortable with using the source at all. Did you wish to comment on the fact that he cannot even give the correct name for Nandi, the bull? Adding marginal resources of this type will open the door to many similar weak sources, which is what concerns me. If you feel strongly that it should be included, I will defer to your judgement, and would suggest that you try to craft something. However I continue to feel that a better approach would be to draw the line on weak sources and go back to stronger materials to see if similar ideas can be sourced from alternative materials which would not open the door to similar superficial materials. Buddhipriya 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no personal investment in this source, having never heard of the book or the author till I clicked on the link above (that, by the way, is a comment on myself and not the source), so I won't really care if the statement stays or goes. As for the Nandi/Nadi error - having not read the book I cannot say if that is an isolated error explained away by typesetting (I have experienced that myself!), or a reflection of the authors lack of familiarity with the area.

With those caveats, here is my view

• The book is not a dubious source on the whole, as attested by the author's academic background , the publisher and the review in a mainstream academic journal; and should be clubbed with the penny-press devotee publications.
• Ganesha, or even Hinduism, is not the central area of the author's scholarship and the reference to Ganesha is a throw-away example in the book.
• The claim made by the author while IMO something akin to pop-psychology, is not a redflag issue.

Now, how one weighs the above three pros and cons comes down to editorial judgment, and good faith editors can disagree. An ideal solution would be if we can find a strong source making (or refuting!) a similar point, and cite it instead. Else, in my personal judgment this is a borderline case, and perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to mention the hypothesis in a short sentence, while attributing it to David Brown specifically (something along the suggestion above, although one can tighten the prose). Perhaps we can wait for Redtigerxyz, to weigh in before proceeding further ? Abecedare 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have given a good summary of the facts. I would appreciate having the opportunity to try to locate an alternative source for this material prior to putting the dubious source in immediately. Would it be possible to allow a little time for research on this to determine if there is some clear pattern to the other sources, which have not been systematically examined with regard to this specific point? Buddhipriya 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no emergencies on wikipedia ... and even though Ganesha is a living deity, I don't think WP:BLP applies. :-)

So I don't think there is any rush on this issue, and I hope that we all can research/discuss the merits and decide whether to keep/delete/rephrase the Brown sentence, without edit-warring. Abecedare 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to look through the sources we already have vetted in the References to find what people say about the mouse, and am also looking at some of the various devotee literature on hand which so far has been carefully kept out of the References (and should stay out, unless some way can be found to characterize them clearly).

• In the article now is an example of devotee material, but it is souced by a text that purports to be a work on Hinduism: "Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. (source: A Student's Guide to AS Religious Studies for A Student's Guide to AS Religious Studies for the OCR Specification By Michael Wilcockson pg.117) I have no idea how that one slipped in, and the work is not vetted in the References. I have not seen the book, but the Wilcockson "mouse as desire" quote is similar to Chinmayananda (p. 4) who notes the destructive effect of mice, which nibble away at things, and then says "Similarly, there is a 'mouse' within each personality which can eat away even a mountain of merit in us and this mouse is the power of desire." He continues by saying that we must master this desire, etc. I think this second use of this idea in Chinmayananda at least establishes the notability of that particular idea in Wilcockson, so I suppose it should stay in, perhaps with a second supporting citation to establish notability.

• An academic overview of mouse issues is in Grimes (1995: 85-91) in which he systematically reviews speculations about the meaning of the mouse, which he notes is "a controversial figure, an enigmatic figure." I think this is worth citing because it establishes an academic context for the fact that there are a lot of different views about the mouse, with meta-analysis of the themes. The work by Grimes is by an academic publishing house and is current. Among other things he gives scriptural citations pertaining to how Ganesha got the mouse, etc. He reviews patterns of ideas that are associated with the mouse, noting that "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire." (p. 86) He cites several references on various authors that associate it with desire. However he also mentions postive interpretations, e.g., "The mouse may be thought of as representing Grace." (p. 88, with elaboration of why this is so). He also lists various other interpretations, e.g.: "This demonstrates that all beings, high and low, big and small, are vehicles of the Divine." (p. 90), etc. Buddhipriya 06:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I will chip away at this over the next few days, but wanted to note these to start. Buddhipriya 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I re-read Krishan's material on the mouse, since we currently cite the "destructive pest" theory from him. Krishan gives a review of many mouse stories, theories of how Ganesha got the mouse, etc. Perhaps if the article is to be expanded on this one approach would be to include scriptural citations. For example, Krishan cites a story in the Ganesha Purana to explain how Ganesha got the rat as follows (highly abbreviated): A rat used to cause extensive damage in the hermitage of the sage Parāśara. The mouse was eating the grain and books, etc. In his incarnation as Gajamukha, Ganesha had taken birth as the son of Parāśara, and to help his father out the trouble he caught the rat with his noose (pāśa) and made it his mount. This story, in Krishan's view, supports the notion that the rat was seen as a symbol of a troublemaking force that is subdued by Ganesha. Krishan cites other stories as well, such as Brahmavaivarta Purana 3.13.12, in which the goddess of earth, Vasundharā, gave the mouse to Ganesha as a gift to serve as his mount. This version of the story connects the mouse as a symbol of earth (I recall reading this elsewhere but will need to look up the citations). In the Skanda Purana 6.142.32 it is Skanda who gives him the rat. There are such a maze of stories, figuring out how to establish notability seems important. Buddhipriya 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nagar has a review of mouse and vehicle issues on pp. 94-95 and cites the same scriptural story in the Brahmavaivarta Purana 3.13.12, even giving the source text in Sanskrit. He cites an interesting Tamil variant story in which the powerful demon Gayānugāsura, the elephant-faced asura, was causing all sorts of troubles after receiving a boon from Shiva of being invulnerable to any conventional weapon of war. The gods, in panic, appealed to Shiva to do something about the uncontrollable demon. Shiva and Parvati produced their son Ganesha to handle the problem. Ganesha took charge of Shiva's gang (the gaṇa) and went forth to combat the demon. Terrified by Ganesha, the demon changed into a large rat (a bandycoote) but was foiled again when Ganesha grabbed him and made him his mount. Note again that in this story the rat is a demonic force that Ganesha has subdued. Buddhipriya 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ludo Rocher has a brief review of mouse stories on p. 73 in Brown (1991). He cites the story of Earth giving him the rat at his name-giving ceremony. He cites a different story in the Ganesha Purana (II, ch. 134) that in dvaparayuga a particular Gandharva had been cursed to become a rat, and in his incarnation as Gajanana Ganesha made the rat-Gandharva his mount. Rocher notes that the implications of this story are unclear. He refers to "modern speculations" that Ganesha did so "because of its mischevious character", or that Ganesha was connected with some agricultural deity. But finally he includes a mention of the variant belief that "the rat is 'the animal that finds its way to every place." (p. 73) Finally we have a confirmation of the variant that we started with in the non-authoritative source, but it is put into perspective by Rocher as a "modern speculation", one of several. Rocher provides a footnote for this (note 41, p. 81) "going everywhere" theory in an old article by H. Jacobi, "Brāmanism," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 2 (New York: Scribners, 1910):807. So perhaps the history of ideas on this is that in 1910 someone got the idea, and now it is showing up on Wikipedia. Buddhipriya 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is also a review of various mouse stories and scriptural references in Rao, pp. 146-147. Rao gives the story of the cursed Gandharva-rat in some detail, noting that the moment Ganesha mounted the rat, the curse was broken, and the grateful Gandharva begged Ganesha to accept his services for all time, which Ganesha accepted. (GP 2.136.4.39). Rao lists another story from the Mudgala Purana that explains the "the expression 'mūshaka' (for rat) as a vehicle of Gaṇeśa signifies the lord who abides in all things and experiences all events, but hidden under the veil of māyā; he is unseen but operates, like a thief." This connects to the etymology, which connects the words for mouse and thief, which is inherent in the Sanskrit but which has no carry-over into English. (A mouse is a thief of the fields.) Since this is from the Mudgala Purana it would be considered a canonical interpretation.

• Since we finally have a fairly clear picture of the possibly original source for the idea of "going everywhere", and it is in a review article on Ganesha, I suggest that if we think the idea should be put in the article, that it be sourced from Rocher rather than the original David Brown work, which I still consider to be unreliable (for purposes of Ganesha). Buddhipriya 03:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Buddhipriya. I just reread the second paragraph of Ganesha#Mouse as vahana and noticed that it already contains the sentence, "Martin-Dubost thinks it is a symbol of the fact that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.", which to me seems to be making the same point as the Ludo Rocher reference you cite; and I don't see what we would want to add/change in the paragraph, besides possibly adding additional citations to already existing sentences.

One minor and unrelated point: The phrase "Martin-Dubost thinks" makes it sound like what is being stated in MD's personal belief about the question of what the mouse represents, rather than a belief that he simply lists. (I haven't read the cited work, so I don't know if the author presents this as his novel interpretation, in which case of course the phrasing would be justified). So perhaps, we can change the start of the sentence to, "An interpretation ...", unless it is particularly related to MD. Thoughts or objections ? Abecedare 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now that you point it out, I agree that the existing reference to Martin-Dubost is the same idea. I just re-read p. 231 in Martin-Dubost, which includes various other mouse facts, including in the lead for the article a citation to the story about Vasundharā giving the mouse as mount (BP 13.12). Since that story is coming up again and again, perhaps it should be mentioned. The language of what Martin-Dubost actually said can be cleaned up easily if we add a second citation to the same idea in Rocher, and rewording the sentence to follow Rocher more closely. Martin-Dubost has a whole paragraph on associations to the idea that is not as precise as what we have in Rocher. (Martin-Dubost sometimes shifts into a rather lyrical tone when presenting summaries of devotee opinion in the midst of his academic prose.) Shall I go ahead and adjust these points to see if we can get consensus on a minor rewording, plus citation of the gift from Earth? Buddhipriya 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you, having direct access to the sources, go ahead and make any wording changes so that they represent the cited view accurately. Other editors and I can chime in if we have any suggestions/objections. Abecedare 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I integrated two additional citations and adjusted the flow of ideas a bit. If I have made it worse, please improve it. Buddhipriya 05:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>
I like the paragraph in terms of content. However I noticed that four of the sentences specifically name the authors from whose writings the content is sourced, and I was wondering if that is necessary in each case. In general, I think an author/text should be named inline under the following circumstances:

1. A person is quoted.
2. The cited text is an important primary document, say Bible, Gita, Puranas etc.
3. The opinion is controversial or a minority opinion which therefore needs to be identified with a particular person/text.
4. The person is an important "primary" source, i.e. the opinion is important not only by itself, but also because that person held it. Example in the area of Hindu philosophy would include, say, Ramanuja, Sayana, even perhaps Max Muller and Radhakrishnana.
5. The person is a "household" name i.e., an average reader is expected to recognize the name, since in this case it helps the reader use his background knowledge of the person to judge the opinion's importance/credibility.

Note that the last two points depend on:

1. Who the expected audience is: So for example Einstein's, Gandhi's, Churchill's opinion should perhaps be cited by name almost in any context; Muller, Witzel, Renou will perhaps be known to any academic audience in the field and therefore should be named inline for an article addressed to that audience; while, say, their "students" will perhaps be unknown except to a select few and can be relegated to the footnotes/references.
2. Whether the statement being cited is an opinion, or just an "statement of fact". In the latter case, the need to identify the statement with the author is even less.

In other cases I think it is better to simply cite the source in the footnotes. We should remember that adding the source information inline, not only has the pro of providing additional information to the reader upfront, but also the con of increasing the "cognitive load" on the reader who thus may be distracted from the actual informational payload of the sentence.
Compare for example, (made-up) sentences such as, "Jacobson states in his 192 pages book 'Geology today' published in 1982 that the Earths' diameter is 12,000 km" to "Jacobson states that earths diameter is 12,000 km" to "Earths diameter is 12,000 km¹". The first formulation would be ideal if Jacobson was the first to make that calculation and his "Geology today" was a celebrated piece of work like Principia Mathematica; the second formulation would be good if Jacobson was the first to make the observation, but the exact publication was not too important; while the third formulation is preferable when the only important information one wishes to get across is Earth's diameter, and Jacobson is just a convenient citation for the purpose. In the last case, naming Jacobson (and his book) is worse for the reader, since it makes it harder for him/her to absorb the important information.
Buddhipriya, since you have a better grasp of the literature in this area than me, you can decide better when only the opinion/fact is important and in which cases it is important for the reader of the wikipedia article to know up-front who the statement is attributed to. But I think it would be useful to review this section (and maybe even the rest of the article) with this point in mind.
I had read a very interesting article on this subject a few years back, but cannot remember exactly where/when - else I would have linked to it instead of attempting to express the ideas in this half-broken format. Also note that these ideas are thrown out as food-for-thought and not as an exhaustive list of writing guidelines - please think over them in that spirit. Abecedare 07:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)