Talk:Ganesha

Template:WP1.0

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.[1]--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)

Lord Single or Never got married

I was surprised hearing this. During my visit to Kerala I heard that both Ayyappa and Ganesha, sons of lord Shiva are single. Can this be confirmed and mentioned at the main article? [2]BalanceRestored 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a variety of different traditions related to the marital status of Ganesha, which are covered already in the article. Is there some specific point that you think is unclear in the current text of the article? If you are asking about the idea that Ganesha has no spouse, that is already covered in the article with the text: "Ganesha's marital status varies widely in mythological stories and the issue has been the subject of considerable scholarly review.[132] One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as a brahmacharin (brahmacārin; celibate).[133]" Buddhipriya 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's great, at least here every view even if contradicting is mentioned properly.BalanceRestored 09:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Consorts of Ganesha

I feel the Consorts of Ganesha section is too long (3 paragraphs). Thus a case of Undue Weight can be presented. Since the topic Consorts of Ganesha has a separate article dedicated to it, details like Interpretations of relationships and shaktis can be avoided or only a 2 to 3 line reference to the same should be made. Anyone who wants to read the details can go to the Consorts article. I suggest that the 3 paragraphs and the 3rd paragraph in the introduction of Family and consorts should be clubbed to form 1 paragraph. Everyone' suggestions are welcome --Redtigerxyz 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably can be shorted somewhat, but I do not agree that it is too long now. The issue of the multiple views is clearly notworthy because many authors have covered it. Overall the article is not now too long, and I see no reason to cut it. Buddhipriya 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha article has all the information in Consorts of Ganesha, except 3 paras

1. Bachelor
2. Saraswati - Lakshmi
3. Kala bou.

Thus I feel that the section should be shorted.I will start doing so from today, a little everyday. --Redtigerxyz 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done with Para 1 - Buddhi, Riddhi , Siddhi.--Redtigerxyz 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These cuts are being done without any consensus. This is the same sort of unilateral behavior done despite obections that created disruption on Sritattvanidhi. This article has reached a mature status and has had relatively little content change for the past couple of months except for cases where there has been significant discussion prior to the removal of material. Now we are subjected to cuts with no discussion whatsoever of what should go or stay. This is a disappointing behavior on an article where improvements ideally would be made with more input. If the section is to be shortened, the key question is what are the key ideas that need to stay. I hope that all cuts will be made in a manner consistent with WP:CON. Here are examples of cuts that suggest subtle editorial shifts:

• Here is an example of removal of material that was attempted by this editor in the past, but which was rejected at that time: [3]. This seems to be an attempt to return to content disputes that were previously gone over. Buddhipriya 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a detail that in itself is not major, but which in context makes the point that in the Moragon complex the two shaktis are of the Buddhi/Siddhi tradtion rather than the Riddhi/Siddhi variant that was not cut: [4]. A balanced handling of the two different tradtions needs to come through in whatever shorter version of this material results.

• Here is a cut that for no clear reason gives prominent play to one of the variant myths: [5]. Why is this version given undue weight, and the context removed that shows that there is variation in the myths?

Buddhipriya 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I had taken a WP:BOLD and just wanted to show how the section can be shorted somehow if one feel that you didn't like it, please revert.

1. I have just moved the content, i removed in [6] elsewhere. [7] with rationale given.
2. [8] info is moved to 1st para as image caption.
3. That info i moved from Riddhi, Siddhi, Buddhi section to the part where SkandA is discussed, to decipt an example of rivalry between Ganpatya and Skanda cults in mythology. Can be totally removed.

I still feel the section should be shorted. Consorts of Ganesha, except 3 paras is pasted in Ganesha article so why have a different article??(this is a rhetoric question, i do not suggest merging of Consorts article) It becomes so much repatitive. If the Consorts of Ganesha has the details on the subject then the Ganesha article should only have an intro to it.

The Last edition of Ganesha edited by me [9] is shorted to a little extent i wanted to cut down on Intrepetations and Shakti too.

The Introduction should only have

1. Parents, Brother, Consorts - the 4 patterns + shakti , children of Ganesha
2. Intrepretations can be summarized in simple English as the wives and children may just be the good things we get by Ganesha worship, later personified or the wives may be just attendants like Asthasiddhi and not wives. One need give the evidence supporting in the article.(Can be given as Note or can be refered in Consorts article)
3. Shakti as Consorts article' first para says are simply energies or potenies personified, also associated with Tantric worship of Ganesha.

--Redtigerxyz 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said at the outset, I agree that the section can be shortened, possibly by quite a bit. I also agree on the general point that since the other article exists on the Consorts, it is generally good to reduce the detail here and refer the reader to the detail article. My objections to conflict-oriented editing are that the key issue for a mature article like this one is to exemplify the best possible editing practices, emphasizing collaboration rather than divisive conflict. So far we have had no input from other regular editors, and i would like to hear what they think. We need to determine if there is support for cutting the article, and what the key ideas are that need to be retained. Previously this article was a random collection of myths with no rhyme or reason in their selection. Simply cutting sections out with no strategy moves the article back in that direction. I do not understand the statement "wives and children may just be the good things we get by Ganesha worship, later personified", which does not correspond to any sourced point made by the article.

As a general strategy I would agree with the above statement that the key outline of ideas should be an overview of "Parents, Brother, Consorts" and the the pattern analysis is more important to discuss than the details of the individual patterns. I would like to go over both this article section and the detailed article on the Consorts to double check what is the best-sourced material as well. If we are going to work on this section, this would be a good time to upgrade references (such as finding secondary sources rather than primary sources, if possible).

Note that one of the criteria for FAC status is stability of the article. I have been mainly watching what edits have been taking place and have noticed that since the copy-edit effort began some time ago, there have have been almost no substantive changes, with the exception of the historical material on Tilak. I had begun to think that the article had reached a fairly steady state, but this round of changes will need close review by multiple editors to make sure that we keep the quality high and do not throw out the baby with the bath water. One orderly approach might be to work on the Consorts article first to ensure that all of the material is there and in good shape before making radical changes here. Once we are sure that the other article is solid, this can be cut with less risk of losing material. I have not been watching the Consorts article carefully and have not reviewed it closely, but will do so within the coming week. I hope other editors will also take a look there to ensure that we are all confident that it will serve as a reliable secondary article once the main article is reduced. Buddhipriya 04:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC status can wait a while til key difference in opinions are resolved.--Redtigerxyz 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant by "wives and children may just be the good things we get by Ganesha worship, later personified" that "wives and children may just be the benefits like success, auspiciousness etc. we get by Ganesha worship, later personified". Also i think Consorts is great (mostly) referenced article which has the details. Why do we repeat them????????

Also i request the other editors to represent a point of view to come to a WP:CON.--Redtigerxyz 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read my comments above in which I am mainly objecting to the process to be used to remove sourced content from this article. Since currently you are the only editor who is calling for removal, it would seem that the best approach is to first verify that the other article currently does contain all of the material to be removed here. The two articles have not been edited in parallel for some time. In the next few days I intend to go over the Consorts article carefully to verify that everything is there. Once that is done, I would like to suggest some reductions here, particularly to keep the mainline ideas and upgrade sourcing in the process. I still am unclear what you may mean by your comment regarding the wives and children being personifications of something. I am not aware of any citation that would support that statement as you are making it. Buddhipriya 06:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate having been given a few days to look more closely at the Consorts of Ganesha article. I am about halfway through a detailed merge comparison of that article with the Ganesha article. I doing this review, I hit on the idea of trying to do a very good lead for the Consorts article by asking for help from multiple editors to get the lead to be concise and compelling. If a very good lead could be developed, perhaps we could simply copy that lead into the Ganesha article and cut all the detail from here, which would be responsive to the suggestion made by Redtigerxyz to shorten the Ganesha article. My review of the consorts article shows that while the details need a good bit of cleanup to take care of some notes, etc., the article is actually still in pretty complete shape. Over the next several days I will continue with a line-by-line merge analysis (which I am doing using a version comparison tool in my word processor) and will continue with reference work there. Do other editors think that the idea of using the lead here is worth considering? it would address the issue about process for removal of content that I raised, because the systematic condensation of the Consorts article may produce a good result. I would only support cutting the material here after a good lead was in place on the Consorts article. Buddhipriya 07:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the lead of Consorts covers all the patterns and thus can be considered good. We can start cutting the material here. Regarding the intro in Family_and_consorts section in Ganesha, i suggest the lines from intro of Consorts article can be used to cover all patterns + the children - Shubh(Kshema), Labha and Santoshi info should be added.--Redtigerxyz 13:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you think this suggestion has merit. Let's hear what other editors think. Please do not cut any material here until there is some agreement on the Consorts article that the lead there is stable. Once there is WP:CON regarding what that article says, then the copy of the lead can take place. I ask all editors of the Ganesha article to please work on Consorts of Ganesha in the next week to specifically polish the lead for possible inclusion here if there is more consensus for that strategy. There is no need to rush any major change to the Ganesha article, and ensuring that consensus exists is appropriate before making a major cut. Buddhipriya 04:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been more than a week since the plan to remove the detail here was suggested, so I will go ahead and remove the three sections that duplicate material in Consorts of Ganesha. I will leave the summary paragraph as it is, pending further refinement in the Consorts article, which is still showing some adjustments being made to the lead there. Buddhipriya 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Buddhipriya. I added info about children from Consorts of Ganesha article. Can you please add references for his sons in both the articles???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerxyz (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see that there have been a large number of edits, including a pass from one of the copyeditors. I will try to go over the entire article in the next few days. Unfortunately my time on Wikipedia is very limited this week, but I will try to get it done as quickly as possible. We still need to be sure that the lead in Consorts of Ganesha is stable, and if so, that text can be used here according to the plan we outlined earlier. That will make it easier to keep the sourcing correct between the two articles. At this point I think that the sentence about Santoshi Ma can be cut from this article, since it is incidental to the main line, and is covered in the Consorts article. I agree with keeping the bit about the sons in both articles. Buddhipriya 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Santoshi Ma sentence should remain. Though it has no Puranic evidence, she is believed to be a child of Ganesha.--Redtigerxyz 05:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I willing to keep it. Generally I would suggest that we stick to the strategy of keeping this section short, since the article on Consorts is now in fairly good shape. I will try to continue with referencing on the fact-tagged items but my time on Wikipedia has been very limited, so it may take another week. Otherwise I would say that this issue of editing the Consorts section of the article is completed. Buddhipriya 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I archived this talk page because it was getting to be 84 KB. Also, the discussions that were started before August did not have any new comments from this month. Happy editing, [sd] 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have adjusted the setting for the Mizabot archiver to 60 days. In order to permit as many editors as possible to get a sense of what is going on with the article, I personally prefer to show at least two months of context on talk pages. I know tht I find it helpful when I go to a new article to see what issues have recently been covered.

Comment

I noticed this comment in Ganesha#Family_and_consorts

"or in a mysterious manner that is discovered by Shiva and Parvati" Comment: Is Ganesha discovered by S&P or is the manner discovered ? The current sentence has the second meaning ref:Brahmavaivarta Purana, Ganesha Khanda, 10.8-37.

Should it be "discovered in a mysterious manner by Shiva and Parvati". To however added the reference or has the reference source , Please check.--Redtigerxyz 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the current version of this sourcing cites only the primary scripture, I will try to find a reference to this story in a secondary source. This may take a few days. Buddhipriya 09:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

or should it be "created in mysterious manner then discovered by Shiva and Parvati".--Redtigerxyz 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found a couple of good secondary sources regarding the birth story in Brahmavaivarta Purana, Ganesha Khanda, 10.8-37. Nagar (pp. 11-14) goes into quite a bit of detail not just on the birth story but on other things as well. Winternitz (volume 1, pp. 567-569 and passim) puts the Purana into context and notes the birth story. The big picture is that since this is a Vaisnava Purana, with a specific focus on Krishna as the supreme reality, the Purana includes many stories that put a unique emphasis on things, and book 3 is devoted to stories pertaining to Ganesha. Winternitz (volume 1, p. 568) says "In a very curious way Gaṇeśa is here represented as a kind of incarnation of Kṛṣṇa." The version of the birth story as given in detail in Nagar is a bit long and convoluted, but in a nutshell Vishnu disguised himself as an old beggar and came calling near where Shiva and Parvati were sporting with one another, but disappeared before they could actually encounter him. Shortly thereafter, Shiva and Parvati heard a divine voice from the sky pronouncing that Krishna had manifested himself as the son of Parvati. Parvati investigated this claim by entering her chamber and found the boy Ganesha lying down on a bed therein. Parvati then called Shiva and disclosed to him the "mysterious appearance of an infant, who was taken as a son by both of them." (Nagar, p 12.)

What is most notable about this version is probably the fact that it is a Vaishnava scripture in which all the other deities are shown as subject to the will of Krishna in particular. I am not sure it is worth expanding the material much in the present article, but perhaps it is of value somewhere on another article. What do other editors think? Buddhipriya 04:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"created in mysterious manner then discovered by Shiva and Parvati". will be most apt. The Krishna aspect can be also added to the article.--Redtigerxyz 13:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording and provided page references in Nagar for the existing "mysterious" sentence but I am undecided if the additional material from Winternitz is needed. I would like to look in a couple of additional sources to see if this variant is widely quoted or if it is a rarity, which would help determine if WP:UNDUE applies. Buddhipriya 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

blasphemous statements in Courtright' book

I recently read the information ahead on WT:HNB , discussion Food for Thought:

"""Here is an interesting article that addresses the very issues at the heart of so much disagreement on Hinduism related wikipedia pages:

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070629&fname=aditibannerjee&sid=1

Cheers, The article is about western academics, who are reliable sources, using psychoanalysis and bias to 'prove' things that any Hindu knows to be absurd, such as:

"Its (Ganesa's) trunk is the displaced phallus, a caricature of Siva's linga. It poses no threat because it is too large, flaccid, and in the wrong place to be useful for sexual purposes."—Courtright, Paul B. (1985). Gaṇeśa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN ISBN 0-19-505742-2. (a 'RS' author freely referenced at Ganesha)

"He [Ganesa] remains celibate so as not to compete erotically with his father (Shiva), a notorious womaniser, either incestuously for his mother or for any other woman for that matter."—Courtright

"Both in his behavior and iconographic form Ganesa resembles in some aspects, the figure of the eunuch… Ganesha is like a eunuch guarding the women of the harem."—Courtright

"""

Excerpt from the Preface by Wendy O'Flaherty: "Ganesa has everything that is fascinating to anyone who is interested in religion or India or both: charm, mystery, popularity, 'sexual problems', moral ambivalence, political importance, the works"[10]

Please read this too:

http://www.utc.edu/Administration/UniversityRelations/newsreleases/homenews/perspectives04.html

Some Customer reviews on the book on amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/8120816102/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_top/002-8609084-6682436?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books#customerReviews

The nude picture of Ganesha on the cover page had outraged Hindus over the world.

Do we really have to have this controversial book, which states blasphemous and misleading statements as reference when alternate sources are possible????

Give a thought.--Redtigerxyz 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as books like this are considered WP:RS, Redtigerxyz, there's nothing that you can do to keep them off of Wikipedia articles. One of the official policies of Wikipedia is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from WP:VERIFY, emphasis is not mine).

P.S. You'll likely be informed that it's your responsibility to find alternate sources, since it's you (along with a billion other Hindus) who are offended by that book, and who all know that it's anything but 'reliable'. Good luck and welcome to Wikipedia.ॐ Priyanath talk 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The only "blasphemous" content from Courtright that has been mentioned so far are the quotes that you have placed here on this talk page. I am aware of the hate campaign that has been directed at Courtright. If you actually read the book you will find that 98% of it is solid academic material, and the sexual speculations are quite incidental to the main themes. Courtright is a current major study of Ganesha and cannot be excluded as a WP:RS because some people are offended by a few lines in it. Attempts to remove it from Wikipedia are contrary to the basic principles of WP:RS and would reflect Hindutva censorship of valid academic materials. Buddhipriya 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some random remarks:

• "The nude picture of Ganesha on the cover page had outraged Hindus over the world." Really ? Here is the cover, judge for yourself if the outrage is real.
• I have little faith in the psychoanalytic speculation represented in the above quotes, but my objection is on the grounds of questioning their validity, rather than their "blasphemous" nature. If someone proposes that we include this Freudian analysis on the Ganesha page, I will object on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. (Aside: I wonder how someone who has read the epics, puranas etc and seen how irreverently we treat our devas and mythological figures, find these remarks - however unfounded - to be blasphemous ?)
• Courtright has been referenced 5-10 times in the Ganesha article. Is there any question regarding the factual accuracy or scholarship of any/all of those quotes/citations ? If so, I support discussing them here on the talk page. But if the objection is simply that we should boycott such "blasphemous" sources - I'll most strenuously object, and not only on the grounds of wiki-policy.
• I should clarify that I haven't read the book myself (yet) and am basing my remarks on the quotes/links above and Buddhipriya's description of their context in the work (since I think he is the only one here who has actually read it). So I apologize in advance if I have missed some more fundamental issue with the book, other than the ones mentioned above.

Abecedare 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The vicious attacks on Courtright by Hindutva activists, and controversy over this book in particular, are discussed in Martha Nussbaum (2007), The Clash Within (see book index for multiple page references, ISBN 0-674-02482-6). According to Nussbaum, Courtright received so many threats that he reported them to the FBI, which initiated an investigation that apparently is still underway, and his house and family have been placed under guard. Courtright responded to these attempts at intimidation by preparing a lecture entitled "Studying Religion in an Age of Terror". According to Nussbaum, "Wherever a lecture by Courtright is announced, protests are made, and extra security measures need to be taken." (p. 254) This intimidation of Courtright is given by Nussbaum as an example of the general Hindutva efforts to silence academics. Attacks on Courtright are a form of intellectual terrorism. In discussing the book specifically, Nussbaum notes that it won the American Council of Learned Societies prize for the best first book in the history of religions; that prize (1985) is also mentioned on the back cover for the book.

It should be noted that the editor who has objected to this book has recently begun adding citations to Subramuniyaswami to the article on Sritattvanidhi. The same editor made efforts to get dubious material from that source into the article on Ganesha (recall the "Lord of Dharma" dispute?) but was rebuffed, and information was brought foward at that time pointing out the WP:FRINGE nature of Subramuniyaswami's claims in this and other areas. His views about Lemurian Scrolls pointing to visits by extraterrestrials do not inspire confidence.

The issue of a "nude" picture on the cover is patent nonsense and suggests that anyone who would make such a claim has not closely examined the picture. While the genital area is obscured in shadow, detailing on the hip clearly shows that he is wearing a belted cover of some sort, and the detailing of the drapery can be seen hanging downwards between the legs. The statue is a rather charming depiction of Ganesha Dancing, and the choice of free-flowing clothing for that image is entirely consistent with iconography for statues of that type.

My personal opinion on the issue of the sexual content in Courtright is that he, like Wendy Doniger, has a Western cultural perspective that reflexively finds sexual content everywhere. None of those contested findings are in the article now, and I see no reason to put them there. The issue that Hindutva activists attack Western academics is notable, but it is not central to this article. Buddhipriya 20:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Read Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America ISBN 978-8129111821 to learn how the Courtright issue was falsely made out to be predominantly a protest by extreme Hindutva groups (who I have little sympathy for). The protest was actually begun by a group of Hindu academics who found fault with Courtright's extremely poor academic standards. Later, some extremists, a small minority, made it out to be a Hindutva protest. Some anonymous people on the internet also made vague threats against Courtright. Nussbaum jumped on that bandwagon, rather than responding to the real issues brought forth by the Hindu academics. It's far easier to call people names than respond to the real issues. I would highly recommend Invading the Sacred to anyone who wants the full picture - one that western academia is loathe to present, because it brings into question their very sloppy approach to Hinduism studies. Invading the Sacred has two+ chapters devoted to the Courtright debate, extremely well-referenced, by the very people involved in it. It includes evidence on how the Courtright side tried to paint their academic opponents as Hindutvas and terrorists, as a way of avoiding the reasoned and civil arguments of the Hindu academics.

I do agree with Buddhipriya - the book cover argument is trivial, and is another red herring for the true issues with Courtright's book. Courtright's (and Doniger, and Kripal) tendency to see phallic symbols everywhere reminds me of a saying: 'when a pickpocket is in a crowd, he sees only pockets.' That's the expertise being presented here. The fact that some of Courtright's quotes may be true, doesn't qualify him as a truly 'reliable' source (in real world terms, I mean). Personally, I have no problem with having Courtright references in this article. It highlights, so well, the issue of "verifiability, not truth." I say this, not to try and change Wikipedia, but to help other Hindu editors get some understanding of Wikipedia, and how they should be learning the relevant policies. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

People just wait. If you read the link right, the current version does not have the nude picture. One of early versions had the image with the organ clearly visible, and after the outrage the version was mostly withdrawn.[11] I agree that old paintings have shown Ganesha the child nude but the organ is always hidden.I pasted the link to Customer reviews on the book on amazon.com so that editors can read different reactions. Some even termed it as "pornography".

When i cited Subramuniyaswami, i have cited the IAST names and meanings which were correct according to Sanskrit. In many names, the meanings contradict Sanskrit, which i did not cite. Anyone may remove all references from the book. I accept that devotee literature may over-glorify the diety, but atleast they dont give the wrong information to westerner who never heard about Ganesha that in Hinduism "Ganesha is like an eunch" and "Shiva is a notorious womaniser". My point is if we can cite somebody else to avoid controversy, whats the problem?--Redtigerxyz 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the picture, I have a copy of the 1989 Oxford University Press paperback edition of the original 1985 edition sitting before me on my desk, and it is as I described it above. The interior description of it says it is a Dancing Ganesha of the 10th or 11th century. It is very similar in syle and dress to a similar bronze statue of Ganesha that I have owned for many years. The image shown on the web site you provide a link to is apparently the Indian hardcover edition published by Motilal Banarsidass in India, showing a standard iconographic depiction of Bala Ganesha crawling on the ground and holding a sweet. If you don't like the picture, you can complain to the Indian publisher (Motilal Banarsidass), which is responsible for that packaging. I own a charming small statue of that form that was given to me as gift many years ago, and it has the same sort of belted thong, entirely appropriate for the form. Virtually identical dress is used for the Bala Ganesha in the picture we have in the article now, and his father is also shown wearing only a thong. The picture is a charming, innocent depiction of a loving family scene of caring for a small child.

Shiva and Pārvatī giving a bath to Gaṇeśa. Kangra miniature, 18th century. Allahbad Museum, New Delhi.

I simply do not understand the hysterical reaction to these images. For the record, there certainly are depictions dating back hundreds of years in which Ganesha, like Shiva, is depicted entirely nude, but those forms are not the forms used in either of these book covers. You seem to find something shameful about a nude depiction, but I personally do not. Ganesha shares many iconographic elements with his father Shiva. In the Shiva Sahasranama, one of Shiva's names is digvāsāḥ, translated by Sharma as "Naked, with directions as his garments" (Sharma 1996, p. 286). This name links to Shiva's associations with ascetics, some of which as a matter of abstention from things of the world went without clothing. In the Śatarudrīya Shiva has the name Diśāṃ ca pati which Sivaramamurti (1976:44) glosses as "Śiva is lord of all the quarters.... Śiva is here the lord of diks and dikpālas.... Śiva being immanent envelops the quarters that are void. Clad thus in void, he is digambara, naked." Several photographs of standard Shaiva iconographic forms depicting Shiva as entirely naked are given in Sivaramamurti's (1976) study of the Śatarudrīya, including the Figure 21 which explicitly shows Shiva depicted as a naked mendicant. If this form were considered offensive it is unlikely that it would be included in two of the most important devotional hymns of Shaiva tradition. In the Ganesha Sahasranama, Ganesha has the equivalent name Digambaraḥ (GP 1.46.63) which also means naked (lit: clothed with the directions). So what is the problem with that form? According to Zimmer (1969:158) "Originally, Jaina saints went about 'clothed in space' (digambara), i.e., stark naked, as a sign that they did not belong to any recognized group, sect, trade, or community." Photographs of statuary in which Ganesha is shown entirely nude and unambiguously showing the genital area are given in Krishan (1999), Figure 10 (Chola, 5th century); Figure 50 (late 3rd century); Figure 53 (6th-7th century). Those photographs appear in a work by an Indian author, published by Motilal Banarsidass. Why has that author not been the victim of a hate campaign? The feminine form of the name, Digambarā, is an epithet of Kālī as well (Stutley 2003, The Illustrated Dictionary of Hindu Iconography, p. 40).

Regarding the Subramuniyaswami book, which I also have a copy of, he does not provide the Sanskrit for the slokas at all, except for providing the names of the 32 forms in Devanagari. It is therefore useless for establishing the original text of the slokas, which is the material which you were in such haste to remove. Since there is not a single footnote or other explanation of what source he is using for his section on the 32 forms, the book is as unreliable for that matter as it is for everything else in it. Buddhipriya 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no issues with the image but the outrage was because of the image i provided the link for.[12] Shiva is in many illustrations decipted nude, his symbol the lingam is intrepreted as a phallic symbol by people. The matter is trivial and can be best ignored.

My objections to the statements. When the book is cited as a ref in wikipedia there is a chance that a westerner who never knew who GANESHA is , read it and would think all the sexual problems , eunch thing nonsense is true along with rest of the 98% which is infact true. Where in Hindu scriptures or Puranas, is it mentioned about Ganesha's alleged sexual problems or Shiva being a womaniser??????? I repeat, My point is if we can cite somebody else to avoid controversy, whats the problem? About Subramuniyaswami book, the meaning of name is given in the text. I would not cite the book again --Redtigerxyz 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if people are outraged by the book cover that Motilal Banarsidass chose to put on their Indian edition [13], they should complain to Motilal Banarsidass. I see nothing offensive about that picture, and I am glad that you now agree that "The matter is trivial and can be best ignored." Regarding the actual content in Courtright, it is an excellent book and a very valuable addition to the academic literature on Ganesha. I recommend it highly to anyone who is a serious student of the subject. The book consists of 254 pages of well-written academic prose, followed by 20 pages of excellent endmatter. Some parts of the book, chiefly the sections on his family mythology, are based on a Western psychoanalytic approach which I personally find dubious, but which is clearly noteworthy as an opinion by a WP:RS. The sexual quotations that you have made from the book have nothing to do with the material we are sourcing to Courtright in this article. Of the quotations from Courtright that are used in the article now, are there any that you feel are factually wrong? If so, please point them out so the facts can be closely examined, and additional citations brought to bear if needed.

Regarding the issue of nudity as a formal iconographic element for both Shiva and Ganesha, the references which I provided above have nothing to do with the linga issue. They are references to additional iconographic standard forms. The ithyphallic Shaiva images, including lingodbhava and urdhvaretas images, are completely different traditional iconographic forms from those mentioned in the citations I provided. The point of the citation I gave above was to establish that nudity per se is actually an iconographic signal for a complex of ideas related to the renouncer tradition. A hysterical reaction to nudity in Hindu art from the periods in question suggests lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Buddhipriya 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that what Redtigerxyz finds disturbing about quoting Courtright in an article about Ganesha, is that Courtright's bizarre sexualizing of Ganesha (even though not quoted in this article) reflects on Courtright's reliability as an expert on Ganesha. That's not a Wikipedia issue, but a real world issue. Courtright certainly qualifies as a WP:RS, if not as a real world (the Hindu world, not the academic one) source. All this is only 'food for thought', as I mentioned at WT:HNB. It explains the Wikipedia dissonance between practicing Hindus, and those who have merely studied it from outside as academics. Buddhipriya - I think that you would appreciate the academic, reasoned, civil, and balanced approach taken by Invading the Sacred. Even if you don't agree with the book, you'll see it's obvious they aren't terrorists or Hindutvas. You might even gain some compassion understanding for the ongoing frustration expressed by Hindus here, which would be a good thing, in my opinion. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information about Invading the Sacred. I began to take steps to get a copy the day I read your post. Our librarian informs me that it is not available locally, but I expect to obtain a copy via interlibrary loan. On a personal note, I agree completely that at least in some Western academic circles there is a disturbing lack of cultural sensitivity, language skills, or both, and that those factors result in sometimes weak scholarship. I do not need to read a book to make me aware of that problem. If we are looking for uneven work on Ganesha, an even worse case than Courtright is perhaps that of John Grimes, whose 1995 book (published as part of the SUNY series on Religious Studies) that we cite in the Ganesha article reads in places like a first draft done by a grad student. Long sections of it have no inline citations, and some of the material is patent nonsense, probably culled by him from devotee literature (e.g. the absurd "ga" + "na" derivation on p. 74, which was one of the first things I cut from this article when I began working on it). Regarding the obsessive sexualization of Indian materials, some time ago I tried to upgrade some of the more dubious referencing on Tantra and some related articles where sexual themes are given WP:UNDUE weight. I eventually gave up trying to deal with charges of "cultural bias" on my part. My attempts to tone down the WP:OR and sexualization were dismissed as some sort of personal sexual issue: [14]. I cite this example merely to show that I personally am well aware of these issues and have probably done as much as any othe Hindu editor to try to deal with them in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies. Buddhipriya 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya if I understand right, we agree on this issue for once. Probably no one can raise an objection if the references are replaced from another book. Wikipedia just wants referances, it need not be from Courtright alone. There are hundreds of books written on Ganesha , we can't cite all of them. This may just be one of them. --Redtigerxyz 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you may have misunderstood what I said. I do not support the removal of references to Courtright, because I find that sort of censorship to be intellectually offensive. Courtright is a WP:RS for this subject, and we are not currently using any material from him that is controversial. My personal opinions regarding the Western tendency to engage in psychoanalytic interpretations of Hinduism are not relevant. While I understand and to some extent sympathize with the offense that this book has given to some Hindus, I reject the thesis that all Hindus find it offensive. Removal of a WP:RS seems inappropriate to me. Buddhipriya 03:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The positive reason why Courtright should be included is that it is one of the most important works produced by an academic press on the subject of Ganesha in the past twenty years. There have not been many such books representing current academic specialization in Ganesha studies, and we currently cite all of the most important overview works (if someone knows of another please mention it):

• Brown, Robert L. (1991). Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God. Albany: State University of New York. ISBN 0-7914-0657-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Courtright, Paul B. (1985). Gaṇeśa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN ISBN 0-19-505742-2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Grimes, John A. (1995). Ganapati: Song of the Self. SUNY Series in Religious Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-2440-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Martin-Dubost, Paul (1997). Gaņeśa: The Enchanter of the Three Worlds. Mumbai: Project for Indian Cultural Studies. ISBN 81-900184-3-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Thapan, Anita Raina (1997). Understanding Gaņapati: Insights into the Dynamics of a Cult. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers. ISBN 81-7304-195-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

In order to present a balanced view, we need to include Western opinion, even if -- or perhaps because -- it takes a different approach from the Hindu sources, which we also include. Buddhipriya 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Nobody here is suggesting the "Removal of a WP:RS in reaction to a hate campaign that has included death threats against the author". I find it highly offensive that there is even the hint that the reason editors here are suggesting better sources is in reaction to the anonymous internet threats ('hate campaign', 'death threats') against Courtright. The reason Redtigerxyz and myself suggested the possibility is that Courtright's bizarre sexualizing of Ganesha makes it obvious to knowledgeable Hindus that Courtright doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to Ganesha. I fully realize that in Wikipedia terms, Courtright is a 'reliable source' (WP:RS), and therefore his 'expertise' will remain here. I also realize that the quotes from Courtright used in this article are not the ones that show his ignorance about Ganesha. My only concern about using those quotes is that knowledgeable Hindus seeing Courtright used as an 'expert' for a Wikipedia article about Ganesha will wonder about the relevance of Wikipedia. I can live with that (and in fact, I do). ॐ Priyanath talk 04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection to use of named references

I have reverted some edits that added named references to existing tags. Named references are very difficult to maintain because a change to one affects others with sometimes unpredictable results. On Wikipedia there are often editors who do not take care to examine the impact that changing one reference has on other matters. In my opinion the most maintainable reference is a distinct entity that includes a specific gloss tying it to the text. I will go over the article again to examine if any of the references that were converted to named format require such glosses. Please note that significant changes to the reference format for articles should be a matter of WP:CON.

Regarding the reference system in general, I would be willing to convert to use of the Harvnb template for references so long as: 1) There is no use of visible inline Harvard referencing (that is visible in the main text), and 2) there is no introduction of named references. The issue of using Harvard references has come up before in discussions related to Hinduism, Vedas, Shiva, etc., and my opinion is that of the available Harvard templates, the one that presents the fewest implementation complexities is Template:Harvnb, which is why I have been experimenting with it on other articles recently. What do other editors think about this? Buddhipriya 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been no objection to this proposal for use of templates yet. I will demonstrate what I plan to do as part of the review/merge operation on Consorts of Ganesha which I will go over carefully in the next week as prework prior to making possible cuts here. Note that Template:Citation has functionality compatible with Template:Harvnb, and thus it may be good to normalize the References to Template:Citation which is emerging as a general-purpose citation template. Buddhipriya 22:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I installed one Harvnb template on footnote 135 as a test. However on my browser if you click the link in note 135 for "Getty 1936", the screen does not jump down to the Getty citation in the References. Other Harvnb templates work correctly for me elsewhere. Can someone determine if this one is miscoded? My understanding is that the Citation template is currently the recommended one to go with the Harvnb template, but I am still trying to understand these templates and may be missing something. Buddhipriya 04:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the problem occurred because the year of publication (1936) was entered in the "date" field instead of the "year" field. It seem to be working properly after that simple change. Abecedare 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you for your help. I am trying to make a good-faith effort to warm up to the templates by using them in actual articles, but I regret that I am very slow at mastering them. Buddhipriya 05:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Last sentence of etym. section

In her discussion of the name Pillaiyar, Anita Raina Thapan notes that since the Pali word pillaka has the significance of "a young elephant" it is possible that pille originally meant "the young of the elephant".

I don't believe the first part of the sentence is expressed well. What does "has the significance of a young elephant" mean exactly? I also saw that it says "discussion of the name Pillaiyar" at the start but later on "pille originally meant." It should be clearer which name is being referred to in Thapan's commentary. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the book, and except for the opening phrase ("In her discussion of the name Pillaiyar,"), which is just to link the material to the preceding sentences, the current sentence is practically a direct quote from Thapan. It does not need particularly unclear to me, but if you find it unclear, can you suggest better wording? The reason for including the opening phrase is just to make it clear which name she is discussing (in previous sentences of her paragraph on this name). Buddhipriya 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the first sentence say that one meaning of pillaka in Pali is "the young of the elephant." If so, I think it is the word "significance" that confused me. I think my second point still applies. Is this sentence talking about Pillaiyar or pille? Or is it referring to both variants? Regards Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence again to further simplify the structure. The sentence in Thapan that is cited refers to the words pillaka and pille. Please advise if it is still unclear. Buddhipriya 22:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Who do I have to get permission from to post a link on the main Wikipedia Ganesha page?

Shanadressler 16:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Who do I have to get permission from to post a link (below) on the main Ganesha page? Could someone please email me at shana {at} swimmingelephant.com?

Discovering Ganesh: a multi-media cultural project about Ganesh, The Ganesh Festival, and Ganesh in the Indian Diaspora [www.discoveringganesh.com]

You don't need permission, you need to make sure that the link fits Wikipedia's guidelines for external links found at WP:EL.TheRingess (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The anti-spam message is recommended by Wikiproject Spam to reduce the amount of spam on articles. The link suggested above cites no WP:RS and is apparently mainly an advertising site. It clearly is not suitable for a link. Please review WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Also note that posting URLs on talk pages is itself a type of spam, and the URL posted above probably should be removed on that basis. Buddhipriya 05:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

Guild homeHow to copy editTemplatesBarnstarsParticipantsCoordinators

RequestsDrivesBlitzesMailing listNewsletters

Talk:Ganesha/Top

Talk:Ganesha/Left panel

Talk:Ganesha/Right panel

Hello! I've completed the proofread of this article--sorry to disappear but I had to take a wikibreak to plan my wedding. However, I saw this come up for proofread on the League's list and decided I had to do the final proof. The article looks great! My only consistent edit was to put compass directions (north, northern, south, etc.) in lower case--they are generally not capitalized unless they are part of a proper name (e.g., North Carolina). If I misinterpreted "North India" and it is indeed the name of the region, please feel free to revert. Congratulations on a fantastic effort. Galena11 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Galena and Finetooth for your painstaking copyediting of the article! I think we should soon be ready to nominate the article for FA status. Cheers. Abecedare 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddhipriya's use of wrong sources

On Aug 2, 2007, I had provided evidences about unreliability of the online version (sanskritdocuments.org) of Amarkosha Buddhipriya was using in svadhyaya( cf. the talk titled Amarakośa 2.7.45-46 on my talk page for evidences), but Buddhipriya again used that source in the present article Ganesha. I had informed Buddhipriya that this online sources uses line number instead of verse (shloka) number, but in the edit summary (in present article) Buddhipriya used this source again, saying that it uses differenrt versification. I am sorry to state that Buddhipriya fails to discern the difference between line and verse. Amarakosha uses a verse type called shloka, which is a verse in two lines. The online source sanskritdocuments.org does not clarify where a shloka ends and the next one begins, and its line numbers are also wrong in many chapters, for hundreds of verses ! Using a wrong source even after being informed is a mark of carelessness on the part of Buddhipriya. I have pointed out only some of the errors, there may be many more errors in this source. This online version can be cited only after it rectifies its errors. -VJha 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not agree that the use of this online version is acceptable. Wikipedia policy does not seem to care much if things are true, but places great emphasis on verifiability. The online version gives exactly the same text that you cite. The numbering is different. The purpose of citing it is to give a second indedependent citation that establishes the same point that you made by quoting your edition. I am unsure why adding a second citation supporting the same point has produced such a strong response. Buddhipriya 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I had emailed the developers of this site to rectify the errors, but they did not care. That is why I came to the conclusion that they are careless and unreliable. You know the numbering is not merely different, but wrong also (for hundreds of lines), which you do not acknowledge. Moreover, Amarkosha was composed in a particular metre which is known as shloka. This site does not make it possible to determine where a shloka ends and next one begins. How many times should I repeat same points ? Once it became clear this site was unreliable, I could not use anything from this site unless cross checked from reliable published sources. The developers of this site made great efforts, and only some finishing touch is needed which they are neglecting. I had requested you in Talk:svadhyaya to request them to mend the errors, because they will listen only when many people will complain. Please note that I am not hungry of "Mr" or "jee", you can address me as VJha, but I am too old to be called by my first name by younger persons. I noticed your answer only by chance. If your reply is not in time, you ought to have notified me briefly at my talk page. I am unfortunate that you have not understood me properly. If there are conflicting secondary sources, primary sources and their commentaries are the touchstones. Do not misinterpret this importance of primary sources as my insistence on WP:OR. If there is no conflict in secondary sources and they are true to primary sources (which is the actual meaning of reliability), primary sources may be and should be neglected. -VJha 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources can be cited to establish what they say, but what they mean is another matter. As you know, Hindu scriptures are complex works that often contain strata from different periods, late interpolations, and significantly different recensions. Thus citations to primary scriptures are often fraught with problems, which is why interpretation of them via secondary sources is the preferred approach on Wikipedia. Regarding methods of address, I assure that you I do not wish to be disrespectful, and if you wish to be addressed in a particular way, it would be helpful if you would indicate that in your signature, which may differ from your user name. Buddhipriya 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an additional online version of the Amarakosa, the complete text of the 1913 Oka edition: [15]. In that edition, the same verse appears, numbered 1.38:

विनायको विघ्नराजद्वैमातुरगणाधिपाः । अप्येकदन्तहेरम्बलम्बोदरगजाननाः ॥ ३८ ॥ vināyako vighnarājadvaimāturagaṇādhipāḥ । apyekadantaherambalambodaragajānanāḥ ॥ 38 ॥

Is there any disagreement about the text of the verse? My impression is that the disagreement is only regarding the numbering of the verse. Buddhipriya 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You miss my point : once a source is found to be erroneous, it must be checked from beginning to end before certifying it as a reliable source. Why you do not put pressure upon these fellows to mend the errors ? I tried and failed. That is why I feel they are careless. -VJha 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious errors in this article

First, Buddhipriya removed short references to Vedic usages of Ganapati (in Ety. section)cited from MW by me on the ground that another section mentions it. Thus the citation from MW was made partial, which was then declared to be WP:OR and deleted by Buddhipriya, together with the reference. Buddhipriya charged me of "reaching a conclusion about the scripture, not just citing the scripture" (cf. edit summary), because I had stated that Pañchatantra was the 'earliest' source in which Ganapati was equated with Ganesha. If the term "earliest" was wrong or WP:OR, Buddhipriya could have either discussed it before deleting, or removed the word "earliest" instead of removing the entire reference to Pañchatantra from this article. This article states that iconic usages of Ganesha are not found before ca. 400 AD. Hence Pañchatantra had to be removed as a source, and I had to be declared to be adding WP:OR ! Buddhipriya cannot cite any reliable source preceding Pañchatantra which equates Ganapati with Ganesha or even mentions Ganesha ; Pañchatantra is obviously the "earliest" source. But I have replaced the word "earliest" with "early" to avoid unnecessary edit war with Buddhipriya. Whether Ganesha was invented by Hindus in 400 BCE or in 1800 AD makes no difference to me, but the manner in which Buddhipriya is deliberately targeting me everywhere for WP:OR and deleting my well sourced contributions is certainly unwelcome. I had requested Buddhipriya again and again that discussion should precede reverting, otherwise I will be forced to leave Wiki, but to no avail. The preceding talk mentions Buddhipriya's insistence on using wrong and unreliable sources. -VJha 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, I too have reverted your most recent edits (along with some unconnected vandalism by an IP) since statements like "MW puts Pañchatantra after Vedic references, which is natural, and gives primacy to Pañchatantra as an ancient source for the use of the term" and "All other references to Gaṇeśa belong to ca. 400 AD or later. That is why MW named Pañchatantra as an early source. " (emphasis added), along with the whole synthesis from quotes by MW, Joseph Jacobs and Brown is pure WP:OR.

It is possible that there is something useful in the content you added, and I highly encourage you to discuss it here on the talk page before adding bulk content, rather than adding your original research and expecting other editors to separate the wheat from the chaff. Abecedare 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of Mr. Jha's edits constitue WP:OR, since they go well beyond what is in the sources, and make various conclusions about those sources. He is drawing conclusions about what the sources mean. The portion of the Vedic materials that is relevant to this article was already covered in the section on Vedic sources. Relevance was determined by the fact that two Rig Veda passages are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. The additional material being added by Mr. Jha, in addition to being WP:OR, also seems irrelevant. So even if it were established by quoting some reliable secondary source, it probably still would be inappropriate for inclusion since the purpose of this article is to give a brief overview, which it what it currently does. Mr. Jha also raises an issue here regarding dating of the Pañchatantra materials, which clearly is not covered in MW. Apparently the argument is that occurance of the word Ganesha in some Pañchatantra scripture would invalidate the current sourced dating for emergence of Ganesha as a significant deity. This is an interesting claim, but since no citation has been given to a secondary source that makes the argument, it is clearly a synthesis and WP:OR. To make this claim stick it would be necessary to show accurate dating for any use of the term in Pañchatantra, which is a collection of material. In the coming week I will see if I can find any reference to Pañchatantra literature in any of the WP:RS that we have already vetted for use in the article. I would not be surprised to find late interpolations of content into the earlier strata of Pañchatantra stories. Such is the case with the Mahabharata, where late interpolation of the Ganesha-scribe story has been soundly rejected in the critical edition. Buddhipriya 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Krishan (1999:102) specifically debunks the idea that Ganesha as we know him today appears in the Pañchatantra, which he dates as (5th-6th century CE), saying that it makes no mention of the classical Ganesha. He says that "Kālidāsa (5th century A.D.) and Viṣṇu Śarmā's Pañchatantra (5th-6th century A.D.) make no mention of the classical Gaṇeśa. On the other hand, Kālidāsa in Kumārasambhava V.14 mentions Guha (Skanda) as Pārvatī's only son. In the opening verse of the Pañchatantra the names of various gods are invoked but not of Gaṇeśa or Gaṇapati."

I checked the indexes for several of the other main WP:RS currently vetted for use in this article, and the term Pañchatantra did not appear in any of the ones I looked in so far. Thus so far Krishan is the only one where I can find a mention of it, and that is to refute the idea. If someone can provide a citation to a specific verse in the Pañchatantra it would be of interest. Buddhipriya 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

SERIOUS ERRORS IN THIS ARTICLE -

I am sorry to post a lengthy rejoinder. Buddhipriya and Abecedare reverted my edits to this article and both of them accused me of WP:OR. I posted my answer to Abecedare's talk page, but Abecedare did not discuss a single point raised by me and plainly answered that since many (?) experienced editors are against me, I must be in the wrong ! After such an answer, I replied "I am not interested in discussing it more". I got out of this article as well as from discussion. The controversy was over, and what Abecedare and Buddhipriya wanted was done by them, without further protest from me. I knew this article was misinforming the readers but since not a single editor was interested in arguing properly, I gave up. Another reason of giving up was that I have no connections with hindutva bandwagon, and any attempt to argue in favour of Hinduism would give these editors a point to portray me as a Hindu chauvinist.

Even after leaving this article, Buddhipriya took my withdrawal as a sign of my defeat and charged me again and again of irresponsibility : thrice of WP:OR and once of WP:RS in previous post alone (cf. above). Therefore, if I do not answer now, Buddhipriya will continue to level such charges on me till I quit Wikipedia. Let me, therefore, state the facts: (1) I had cited Monier-Williams who clearly stated that 'Ganapati' was used in the sense of 'Ganesha' in Panctantra (p. 343 of SED, MW). If MW is a liar, Buddhipriya should argue against MW and not against me. (2) I did not present something new about the dating of Panchtantra, I only borrowed the source of its dating from the already existing Wiki article Panchtantra in which I never made any contribution. If this article was false, Buddhipriya and Abecedare should rectify it instead of blaming me, because I did not edit it. (3) I also mentioned that though Mahābhārata also mentions Ganesha, some modern commentators regard these passages to be interpolations, hence MW cited Panchtantra and not Mahābhārata as an early source. Buddhipriya interprets this statement as WP:OR and synthesis. (4) Buddhipriya and Abecedare regard Panchtantra to be a later source not worth quoting. Mahābhārata is also unreliable, due to interpolations. What about Taittiriya Āranyaka (X,1) which mentions "Vakratundāya dhīmahi" ,i.e., worshipping/meditating (a god) with "curved trunk" ; Vakratunda is one of the eight incarnations of Ganesha already mentioned in this article, Chakratunda means "trunk curved like a circle/wheel". Buddhipriya and Abecedare should prove that Taittiriya Āranyaka is either unreliable or a modern work. I am providing (unaccented) citations from Taittiriya Āranyaka (10-1-5) :

तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे महादेवाय धीमहि । तन्नो रूद्रः प्रचोदयात् ॥

तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे वक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्तिः प्रचोदयात् ॥

तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे चक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि ॥५॥

In Taittiriya Āranyaka (10-1-15) we again find similar expressions :

चक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि तीक्ष्णदँष्ट्राय धीमहि.

I have checked with published version. Buddhipriya may see http://www.sanskritweb.org/yajurveda/ta-10.pdf. for a reliable accented version . (5) And what about a recension of Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyani Samhitā (I am refraining from citing the chapter and mantra, because I want Buddhipriya should do this homework) , which mimics the mantra of Taittiriya Āranyaka, replacing Vakratundāya with "Hastimukhāya" (worshipping a god with elephant's head/face)? Does Maitrāyani Samhitā belong to Mughal period ? Five names of Śiva :Śiva & Sahasrākṣa & Mahādeva & Puruṣa & Rudra, followed with 3 names of Pārvati :Gāngaucya & Girisutā & Gaurī, then 3 names of Skanda :Kumāra & Kārttikeya & Skanda, and then 3 names of Ganeśa :Karāṭa & Hastimukha & Dantī are mentioned in a sequence in the Vedic text itself, although "experts" have reported countless of times that these deities are post-Vedic !!! If Buddhipriya wants to search, I am giving a reliable website (reliable because one can download entire scanned copy of a highly reliable publication)http://ia331314.us.archive.org/2/items/maitrayanisamhit015004mbp/maitrayanisamhit015004mbp.pdf . I am here giving the unaccented version of the last verse among those which mention the entire family of Śiva in Maitrayāni Samhitā recension (śākhā) of Black Yajurveda :

तत् कराटाय विद्महे हस्तिमुखाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्ती प्रचोदयात् ॥

It is a genuine Yajurvedic mantra and I hope Buddhipriya will not accuse me of WP:OR, because Yajurveda is not a lost treatise and I did not search or research it. If Buddhipriya needs a secondary evidence, I can here cite MW, who gives the meaning of Karāṭa as "N. of Ganeśa,MaitrS" (i.e., "Name of Ganeśa, in Maitrayani Samhita"). Karāṭa occurs only once in MaitrS(which I cited above) and MW shows his knowledge of this passage. SED of MW is most popular SED among English speakers. Does it not prove that prominent Indologists knew that the whole family of Śiva existed in the Yajurveda (MS), yet declared the opposite ! Taittiriya Āranyaka belongs to a different recension. Hence, Ganeśa was worshipped by followers of more than one yajurvedic recension. More instances can be found if searched properly. MW did not give a proper meaning of Gāngaucya(MW:"divine being,MaitrS"), because associating Gangā with Śiva or Pārvati during Vedic Age was against the prevalent Indological wisdom. But such is the structure of these mantras that even a cursory look at original mantras proves that Gāngaucya is used for Pārvati. But I do not want to press this point, because Buddhipriya will again accuse me of WP:OR instead of looking at the original or its commentaries (secondary sources). (6) Yājnavalkya Smriti must be dated to mediaeval period to appease these "experts", because in Āchārakānda (let these expert editors find the mantra, a homework) of this text "Ganesha" is explicitly mentioned. (7) Buddhipriya cites Krishan (1999, 102) as a reliable source. I request Buddhipriya to read the original (Kumārasambhava V.14) , Buddhipriya will be surprised to find that Krishan deliberately distorted the meaning, the text does not mention "Guha (Skanda) as Pārvatī's only son". The word "only" was mischievously added by Krishan who had to prove his point at any cost. Krishan is a liar, and no one should believe in other claims of such authors, e.g. concerning dating of Panchtantra. MW is a renowned scholar. Although even great scholars may err sometimes, there is not a single instance in which MW can be found to lie deliberately. I have provided proof of Krishan's falsehood above, which Buddhipriya can verify. (8) But from Buddhipriya's recent behaviour, I feel that Buddhipriya is more keen in driving me out of Wikipedia instead of verifying my statements, and is taking extra pains to accuse me of WP:OR every now and then. (9)Buddhipriya wrongly accused me of WP:OR in Brahmin and replaced my correct version with a wrong one. I provided proofs in talk pages, and waited in vain for many days, without getting any response. Then I replaced Buddhipriya's wrong version with the correct and well sourced one. Therefore, Abecedare was invited this time (in Ganesha) to revert my contributions and accuse me of WP:OR. Instead of consulting the primary and secondary sources, these editors are taking a recourse to collective action against me through an unfair edit war withou proper discussion, and when I had left the field to them, false accusations were posted against me. (10 Buddhipriya has no time for consulting the sources, which is clear from Buddhipriya's remark "If someone can provide a citation to a specific verse in the Pañchatantra it would be of interest". Why anyone else will do this job? If Buddhipriya wants to edit articles related to Hinduism, Buddhipriya must study the reliable sources. Why real work should be done by others, Buddhipriya acting as a super-editor over them ? Secondary sources ought to be cited in Wikipedia, but the editor must possess a first hand knowledge of primary sources as well, otherwise he/she will fail to judge which secondary source is actually reliable. I know Buddhipriya is generally a sincere and good editor, but I am harsh this time because Buddhipriya has crossed limits. Buddhipriya ought to have discussed the matter frankly before reverting or accusing me, and without inviting superpowers like Abecedare to revert my edits. I had requested Buddhipriya to this end, but in vain. (11) See history : 16:17, 5 September 2007 Vinay Jha (→Etymology and other names -Removing wrong source given by Buddhipriya : online version of Amarkosha is wrong, cf Talk page for reasons. Discuss before reverting !!!) . I had informed Buddhipriya long ago that this source is unreliable, yet Abecedare reverted my good action and restored this wrong source, without answering any of the points raised by me. The argument advanced by Abecedare was might is right, i.e., "many" experienced editors (who have no interest in reading the reliable sources) are against me. (12) Had Buddhipriya asked me to provide better or more sources, this article could have been further improved. Instead, I was only accused of WP:OR, four times in a single para (cf. above, Buddhipriya's talk). Due to such a warring attitude, I refused to edit this article. I fail to perceive why even after resigning I am not being forgiven. Recently, I had to rectify a statement (in Indian astronomy) which declared that Megasthenes had visited India in Gupta period, and therefore all dates of ancient India ought to be revised by 600-1200 years ! Although I try to keep aloof from such controversies pertaining to dating, it is not always possible. I am only sorry for the change in Buddhipriya's collaborative attitude (in svadhyaya). Now, Buddhipriya does not want to miss any chance of accusing me of WP:OR. When I left the field, why they do not stop accusing me? I have more important works to do, and I had requested earlier that half of my time in Wiki is wasted in answering to false accusations against me. But Buddhipriya did not stop. Neither Buddhipriya nor Abecedare are going to read the original sources I have pointed to. Hence, facts (and I) must go, and the errors should remain. I still have some faint hopes that in future these editors,esp. Buddhipriya, will try to study the sources instead of accusing me of WP:OR. Had Buddhipriya asked me to provide sources before accusing me and reverting my edits, my response would have been different. But Buddhipriya has too much faith in some published garbage (e.g., Krishan) which deliberately distort Indian history and culture to take me seriously. Some Wikipedians have no time to consult the real sources. Their chief concern is something else : push a particular WP:POV into Wiki articles, and push out those editors who know the original sources by accusing them of irresponsibility, WP:OR, falsehood, and the like. These editors may defeat me by voting without discussing, what they are already doing at present, but they will be remembered for these misdeeds by every conscientious soul. Anand Coomaraswami had commented that Indians receiving modern (colonial) education were "victims" of education. Some Wikipedians, Indians and westerners alike, are still victims of education, neglecting the original sources and genuine secondary commentaries, and relying upon a particulat set of books which they wrongly regard as reliable. I had no intention to provide the information I am now providing (because Wikipedians like Buddhipriya and Abecedare do not care for such information I am capable of providing), because Buddhipriya and Abecedare had already chased me away from this article and I was in no mood to quarrel. By repeating false accusations against me again and again, Buddhipriya is certainly not going to gain anything. Those who tried to silence Socrates could not succeed even by killing him. Now I hope I will not be disturbed. I do not enjoy such companions, and therefore I have no desire to edit this article. They do not feel sorry for their behaviour. -VJha 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Vjha, Please modify the article as per the sources cited.-Bharatveer 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article proves that Ganesha did not exist before 400 AD on the basis of sources which are themselves false, because as I have shown above Ganesha together with his whole family was worshipped right from the Vedic Age (and this knowledge was common among Indologists like MW since 19th century). The spurious sources existing in this article must be removed. But those who added such contributions are reverting my contributions. Hence, it is not possible for me to rectify this article unless these editors cooperate, because I do not want to press for arbitration. I dislike edit warring. -VJha 05:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Vinay, It is quite simple:

• If you have good reliable secondary sources about Ganesha worship before 400AD you are most welcome to discuss them on the talk page or add them to the article.
• However if you wish to base your addition based on your personal knowledge and interpretation of primary sources (such as quotes from Taittiriya Āranyaka, Maitrayāni Samhitā etc. that you cite above), wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to publish that information.

Regards. Abecedare 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Abecedare's refined charges

(1) Abecedare has not mended any of his errors I mentioned above. Abecedare restored the erroneous website as a source for Amarkosha (without checking whether my charge against this website was true or false, because Buddhipriya had cited from this website). I believe Abecedare still does not know he committed this mistake, he reverted my edit without reading the whole. (2) Abecedare reverted my contribution concerning Panchtantra which I had sourced to Monier-Williams, and he is still unwilling to undo this mistake. In other words, he reverts my well-sourced edits and then wrongly charges me of WP:OR. (3) Abecedare is again charging me of trying to push WP:OR , i.e. my "personal" knowledge and interpretation of primary sources" . Relevant words from Taittiriya Āranyaka or Maitrayāni Samhitā cited by me do not need my personal interpretation ; these passage use terms like Vakratunda for Ganesh which are already used for Ganesha in this article citing primary as well as modern secondary source (not supplied by me). There are other reliable sources as well. MW has translated Karāṭa as "N. of Ganeśa,MaitrS" (i.e., "Name of Ganeśa, in Maitrayani Samhita"). But if I cite Monier-Williams for Vakratunda and its synonyms Hastimukha, Karāṭa etc, then MW's interpretations become my personal interpretations and Abecedare reverts them ! There are books which falsely claim that Ganesha did not exist before 400 AD. The question is why books written by liars like Krishan (cf. above for proof) are reliable, and why sources like MW or commentators and interpreters of texts are unreliable ? Abecedare forgets to mention that I have created entire articles single-handedly with the help of reliable secondary sources and recently successfully nominated two of them for DYK. Abecedare is distorting facts to prove that I am a troll pushing my "personal" opinions into Wiki (hardly any message from him does not contain such a charge). All my original research belong not to Hinduism but to the complicated field of weather forecasting, and I sent it to those who understood and honoured my OR. I am not a fool to post my OR to Wiki. The real complaint against me is that I have a first hand "personal" knowledge of texts (on account of which I am capable of distinguishing reliable secondary sources from unreliable ones), and in order to hide his own lack of interest in this field Abecedare now wants to declare me a troll. When secondary sources contradict each other, only primary source can decide which secondary source is reliable, and there are reliable commentaries, dictionaries, etc (which are secondary sources) to decide how to interpret primary sources. There is no need to push one's personal opinion. But now I am convinced Abecedare wants to deny the existence of Ganesha before 400 AD, otherwise he would have tride to get deeper into the proofs I cited above. He has no interest in it. I am not going to waste my time on edit wars against such editors. Abecedare's repetition of false accusations have strengthed my resolve to keep away from editing this article. Following is the list of active editors of this article who have contributed to it during past two and half months, with their total edits to this article. If they cooperate, I may help, otherwise I will keep away from this article. Buddhipriya :1511 ; Redtigerxyz :173 ; DaGizza :156 ; Sd31415 :97 ; Galena11 :59 ; Finetooth :29 ; Abecedare :28 ; Zerokitsune :19, etc. Buddhipriya is the chief contributor of this article and Buddhipriya has recently invited Abecedare to teach me lessons in policies. Following is the passage from Maitrāyani Samhitā (2, 9, 1, 2-6), a branch of Yajurveda, which I request all impartial editors to examine :

देवानां च ऋषीणां चासुराणां च पूर्वजम् । महादेवँ सहस्राक्षँ शिवमावाहयाभ्यहम् ॥२॥ ( : Śiva)

तत् पुरुषाय विद्महे महादेवाय धीमहि । तन्नो रुद्रः प्रचोदयात् ॥३॥ ( : Śiva)

तद्गाङ्गौच्याय विद्महे गिरिसुताय धीमहि । तन्नो गौरी प्रचोदयात् ॥४॥ ( : Gauri)

तत् कुमाराय विद्महे कार्त्तिकेयाय धीमहि । तन्नः स्कन्दः प्रचोदयात् ॥५॥ ( : Skanda)

तत् कराटाय विद्महे हस्तिमुखाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्ती प्रचोदयात् ॥६॥ ( : Ganeśa)

MW translated Karāṭa and Danti as names of Ganesha(MW qouted Maitrāyani Samhita) and also translated Hastimukha similarly. No sane person can claim that the words in bold letters in this passage refer to art-forms and not to well known deities. The matter is quite simple, there is no need to raise a bogey of WP:OR. There is no dearth of secondary sources, but Abecedare and Buddhipriya have a wrong attitude to this problem, hence I want to keep away. I still request Buddhipriya to show some honesty and decency and restore (sourced) truth in this misguided article. Although I changed my sign to VJha due to Abecedare's use of my first name in spite of my request not to do so (it is an insult in India), Abecedare is not heeding it. Had I known it before joining Wiki, I would have have preferred an imaginary name as Abecedare has done. But now I cannot change my user name, and Abecedare will continue to insult me deliberately. Due to this very reason I had informed him on Sep 6 that I have no desire to communicate with him. I again request such impolite persons either not to use my first name or forget me for good. The tone of my response is following Abecedare's. I still want to entertain some faint hope that Abecedare may change his behaviour(calling by first name). Lastly, after I informed that Krishan was a liar and deliberately misinterpreted Kumārasambhava V.14, Abecedare cited the same dishonest author for reverting Bakasuprman's edit referring to coins. Kumārasambhava is not a rare work. Why Abecedare did not deem it necessary to verify my charge ? Obviously, facts are not important ; attitudes are important, and Abecedare shares Krishan's attitude to Hinduism. It is a blatant lie that Ganesha emerged as a secular art form and was adopted as a religios (cult) figure later : I had provided secondary and primary evidences which Abecedare ignored and charged me of WP:OR instead. The existence of Ganesha does not depend upon Abecedare's and Buddhipriya's mercy. Buddhipriya has added most excellent contributions to this article, but Buddhipriya has added some false sources also (unintentionally), which Buddhipriya ought to remove. -VJha ^Talk 18:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: In my view, Krishan has misinterpreted Kumārasambhava V.14 ( may not be deliberately). Kumārasambhava is about "the birth of Kumara (Skanda)" , the first son of Shiva (as per Northen Indian tradition). It describes the killing of Taraka by Skanda and the story ends there. At this moment, Skanda is the only son of Parvati. It was not Kalidas's job to tell about an unborn son "Ganesha". So Kalidas is right in not describing Ganesha or making the statement "Guha is the only son of Parvati" ( if this translation is to be believed) it can well be "Guha is the son of Parvati only".

Point 2: About the coins and its source, [16] , you can verify itself on this online version. Fortunately, the page 32 referrred is available and decide for yourself. --Redtigerxyz 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Redtigerxyz

• Redtigerxyz's opinions are sound but I must add that Kālidāsa did not make statements like "Guha is the only son of Pārvati" or "Guha is the son of Pārvati" ; in Kumārasambhava-V.14 Kālidāsa simply said that even after Skanda's birth Pārvati's motherly affection for all creatures did not diminish (I am giving a reliable summary here; Redtigerxyz should read Kumārasambhava before wrongly pardoning Krishan ; Wiki needs reliable sources and not false authors). Krishan deliberately misinterpreted this statement of Kālidāsa to convince the readers that Ganesha was absent from Hinduism during the age of Kālidāsa.
• As for the online version mentioned by Redtigerxyz, this book totally neglects Ganesha-worship in Yajurveda as cited by me above and proposes that Ganesha originated in Indo-Scythian period. There are good and bad secondary sources, and if a secondary source is not true it is not reliable and should not be quoted, unless for refuting it. Today one Wiki editor told me at my talk page that Śiva did not exist in the Vedic period. I sent him the following names of Śiva scanned from two chapters of White Yajurveda : Śiva, Rudra, Mahādeva, Śambhu, Śankara, Paśupati, Tryambaka, Kapardin, Nīlagrīva (Nīlakantha) and a lot of other synonyms. There are reputed commentaries on Yajurveda, hence do not accuse me of WP:OR for stating facts. Redtigerxyz should take a note of these facts. The whole family of Śiva is mentioned in many recensions of Yajurveda, Āranyakas and Smritis. A particular group of scholars are disturbed by these facts which do not fit into their theories, and therefore falsely declare that Śiva , Ganeśa, etc did not exit in the Vedic period. If a number of scholars commit such mistakes for long periods, the mistake is deliberate. I expect more honesty and boldness from Wiki editors. -VJha 13:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Point 3: Regarding the WP:OR allegation ,editor VJha talks of (तत्पुरुषाय विद्महे वक्रतुण्डाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्तिः प्रचोदयात् ॥) from Taittiriya Āranyaka, Maitrayāni Samhitā and तत् कराटाय विद्महे हस्तिमुखाय धीमहि । तन्नो दन्ती प्रचोदयात् ॥६॥ ( : Ganeśa), this verse from Black Yajurveda; this is discussed on p. 70 [17]; Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God By Robert L. Brown; article tiltled Ganesa's Rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature by Ludo Rocher. These verses are quoted in the book. I will add this point in "Vedic and epic literature" section tomorrow, which only discusses the verses that appear to dedicated to Ganesha, but are not, according to scholars. --Redtigerxyz 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz, thanks for your input and succinct presentation of your points!

• Point 1: Krishan's analysis of Kalidas' Kumārasambhava, though interesting, is somewhat off-topic since it is not quoted or referenced in the article currently or anytime in the past. The basic issue is whether Pañchatantra was the 'earliest' source in which Ganapati was equated with Ganesha. Mr. Jha considers that to be the case, while Krishan doesn't and clearly as per verifiability we will have to take the word of a published academic over that of a unpublished wikipedian. Of course, if a reliable secondary source is produced that supports Mr. Jha's POV, we can add that to the article.
• Point 2 In spite of VJha's statement to the contrary, I did not revert or delete either the sentence or the reference that Bakaman added to the lead, as can be seen from this diff. Instead I added back the previous sentence about the emergence of Ganesha as a distinct deity, and clarified the distinction with the earlier appearance of elephant-faced man in Indian art and coins, which - as per the two cited sources - some identify with Ganesha while others disagree.
• Point 3 Thanks for locating the secondary source for the BY verses! I have added that to the "Vedic and epic literature", along with the mention of supporting and dissenting views by Sayana and Krishan respectively. Please take a look at my edit and tweak it if needed.

Regards. Abecedare 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The summary edit by Abecedare looks concise and accurate: [18]. Thanks to Redtigerxyz for assistance in locating secondary sources. I checked the text of Ludo Rocher on p. 70 of Brown and it is characterized accurately. The citation to Krishan is important, as it raises the key question, which is the possibility of late interpolation. Buddhipriya 04:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the IAST be adjusted to omit the Vedic accent marks. IAST does not in fact include a specification for these marks, and since they are not shown in the Devanagari, showing them in the IAST results in the two versions of the text being different. The text in Rocher (Brown, p. 70) includes them, but they are not relevant to the semantics of meaning, in my opinion. I understand that the issue of the accent marks is of interest to Mr. Jha, but is there a specific case for including them, since they do not affect meaning in this case? Buddhipriya 05:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Points : (1) I had deliberately omitted accents in this case because meaning was not affected. (2) Linguistic peculiarities (Gāngauchyā, Karāṭa) in above passage were overlooked by Krishan ; Gāngauchyā is an enigmatic word which no scholar has been able to interpret satisfactorily; it is related to Girisutā and Gauri. Krishan's charge of interpolation in a Vedic text is a serious matter. What arguments Krishan forwarded for regarding MS (Maitrāyani Samhitā) passage as an interpolation ? Mere occurrence of Ganesha in it ? And Vedic accents were falsely superimposed upon post-Vedic interpolations by crooks, which went unnoticed by everyone excepting Krishan ? Even Ludo puts this passage before Śruti and Śāstra period. I had earlier pointed towards Krishan's deliberate falsehood in misinterpreting Kumārasambhavam. Kumārasambhavam is not a rare book, but instead of looking into it, Abecedare flatly concluded that a published academic is more reliable than a Wikipedian. Why Krishan's pseudo-scholarship in the case of Kumārasambhavam ought to be overlooked ? It is not off the mark, because Krishan used it for dating Ganesha falsely.(3) Now I am giving my personal opinions which are not intended for inclusion in the article, but for further enquiry for evidences (hence do not charge me of WP:OR). MS (Maitrāyani Samhitā) contains two words which are archaic and perhaps do not occur in any Vedic or post-Vedic literature. Even MW could not make any head or tail of Gāngauchyā, although the context suggested it as a name of Gauri, and MW gave a vague meaning "divine being". This word is enigmatic, and its connections with Gangā is not clear, but any alternative explanation is also wanting. But context suggests that this entire verse may be related to Ganesha's mother. Another archaic word is Karāṭa, which I have failed to locate elsewhere in entire literature, although Karaṭa, which means elephant, is frequently found in post-Vedic texts, on account of which MW and ancient commentators rightly connected Karāṭa with Karaṭa. Please help me in finding secondary sources which can throw any light on Gāngauchyā. (4) I had cited soures already cited in Wiki article Panchtantra, besides MW, but Abecedare forgets these citations and construes my remarks as my "personal" opinions and WP:OR . Panchtantra may contain layers, but what about its stories depicted on caves of Mauryan period (cf. article Panchtantra for secondary sources, which I had copied to this article but Abecedare reverted it charging me of WP:OR. If MW cited falsely from Panchtantra, Abecedare ought to argue against MW and not against me. K. Krishna Murthy also says in Mythical Animals in Indian Art : "the earliest representation of Ganesha, as pointed out by Coomaraswamy, seems to be that of the Amravati coping". (5) Please do not add "Mr" to any Wikipedian, signature is enough. -VJha ^Talk 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You raise so many points at once that I find it overwhelming. I would like to take one item at a time and bring it to closure. Can you please give me a specific verse or other citation to text in the Panchatantra that mentions Ganesha? Since no specific story or other reference has been given so far, I am finding it difficult to locate. I have placed two editions of the Panchatantra on order for interlibrary loan but it may take a week for them to get here. Also, I take it from your reply that you would not object to removal of the Vedic accent marks from the IAST transliteration, since you agree that in this case they do not affect the meaning. If no one else objects, I will remove them from the IAST and adjust the IAST to be a lossless romanization of the Devanagari. Buddhipriya 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I read Panchatantra 34 years ago. I cited it from MW and Panchatantra article, and not from my memory. If you insist, I may purchase the book. In the meantime, I am quoting Y. Krishan (Gaṇeśa:Unravelling an Enigma, p.6): "Pārvati who created an image of Gaṇeśa out of her bodily impurities but which became endowed with life after immersion in the sacred waters of the Gangā. Therefore he is said to have two mothers--Pārvati and Gangā and hence called dvaimātura and also Gāngeya." Krishan traces this story to later mythology, but will you try to find some secondary source on Gāngauchyā in Maitrāyani Samhitā, which is mentioned with Girisutā and Gauri, as I mentioned above? I fear this word has been neglected by almost everyone. Gāngauchyā is certainly related to Gangā, its exact derivation is obscure. One Sanskrit professor suggested yesterday :"Higher than Gangā (= Pārvati)". But in my view, Gangauchyā should suggest "Higher than Gangā OR one who holds Gangā on its heights" (=Parvat, father of Pārvati) and Gāngauchyā should mean daughter of Gangauchyā. -VJha 21:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidhi Vinayaka

A most common characteristic for Ganesha idols found everywhere is that his trunk will be curved to his left hand side. However there are few rare cases where trunk is curved to the right hand side. Such idols are very rare and unique and are referred to as Sidhi Vinayaka. According to one popular belief such idols should be worshiped with utmost care. One example is Balamuri temple near Mysore, Karnataka. I was wondering whether this information should be added to the article. If agreed upon, we can find some scholarly sources. Gnanapiti 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Brown (1991), which discusses the iconography and several historical depictions of Ganesha in considerable detail, does talk about an icon on page 144 (in an article by Amy Catlin) with a, "rare right-curving trunk called Valamburi Ganesa (Tamil: valamburi, turning towards the right)". However the reference is only passing and no symbolic meaning is attached to the variation in that article. In most of the other images and statues discussed in the book, the trunk is usually left leaning, typically curved towards the modaka Ganesha holds in (or is near his) his lower left hand :-)

I'll look at some other sources to see if I can find something more relevant. May take a few days though. Cheers. Abecedare 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another example would be Siddhivinayak temple in Mumbai. A one-liner or two can be included in the iconography section, common attributes.--Redtigerxyz 13:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of the direction in which the trunk turns is indeed an important identifying factor in classifying Ganesha images. When describing these forms it is important to be precise with use of the terms left and right as either relative to him, or relative to the viewer's perspective. These apply to images where he is viewed from the front. The article now includes a wonderful profile image that is very authentic, and in the profiles we often see a winding shape. I am sure we can find something related to this as citations, but in general it should be noted that the left/right turn is not interpreted consistently in the sources I have seen. It is chiefly a late development in popular tradition, as far as I know. The images are generally broadly grouped as left or right turning, but there is also a smaller group of vakratunda ("twisting trunk") style in which the twists and turns take a sort of "S" shape or more complex convolution. He is also described in at least one case in the sahasranama with the trunk going stright upward to touch the center of his own forehead. When shown in battle he is often shown with the trunk elevated, like an elephant trumpeting. I will try to find something on these issues in the next week but my time on Wikipedia is very limited right now. Buddhipriya 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious source added

I am concerned that this edit [19] relies upon what appears to be a weak source, and the removal of the previous Gupta statement conflicts with the bulk of the cited evidence. I think this source needs to be vetted, and the claims that are pushing the date for Ganesha back to earlier periods need to be challenged. This is another case of using a statement from a general work that conflicts with the better evidence put forward in specialized works on Ganesha. I am going to move the statement to the talk page and fall back to the prior summary pending discussion of this material. This certainly does not belong in the lead. It may be relevant to the historical section, but only to debunk the idea that these images have anything to do with Ganesha. Here is the version of the material as it was today:

Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century BCE. However

I could accept reinsertion of this material in this historical section, but note that the vague "which some identify with Ganesha" should be made more precise if possible. There have been various speculative attempts to find Ganesha in earlier materials, none of which are accepted by the best reviewers of the material. Putting this in the lead gives WP:UNDUE weight to one of the vague speculations. I moved the dubious material to the section on historical influences, but I am still not happy with how it integrates there, as it still seems to give too much weight to it. I will see if I can find any other citations that may put this into better context. Buddhipriya 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the material is a better fit in the "Possible influeces" section rather than in the lead, since there is active disagreement among scholars whether those early iconic depictions represent the (modern) "Ganesha" or not. Krishan (1981) surveys the academic view about this issue. He begins the section, "Gaṇeśa in Art" as:

"Gaṇeśa is said to appear in sculpture some centuries earlier than in literature. It has been argued that a silver drachm of the Indo-Greek King Hermaeus dating about 10 B.C. represents him as a throned male deity with an elephant's head. A terracotta plaque of the first century B.C. or A.D., found in the excavations at Rairh in Jaipur, is thought to show a Vainiiyaki, a female deity having the head of an elephant. Likewise on two clay tablets unearthed in the digs at Sambhar bearing a figure claimed as elephant-headed is called Gaṇeśa. However all these identifications are highly speculative."

He then goes on to discuss the specifics cases in detail and argues that these "speculative" associations are "untenable"; however he also points out that others, such as Coomaraswamy (A.K.Coomaraswamy in Boston Museum Bull., 1928, no.154, p. 30.) believe otherwise. That is the reason I had rephrased the sentence to clarify that the depictions are of "a elephant faced man" which some identify with Ganesha (I assumed that it would be implicit that others disagree, but if required we can make it clearer).

Krishan may have an updated account on the topic in his 1999 book, which I have not read myself, and there may be other references too. We should aim to make the current scholarly opinion clear in a sentence or two, without giving this whole issue undue weight. Any comments and suggestions appreciated. Abecedare 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find something on this in Krishan's 1999 book which I have on hand, but time is limited this week. You will find that the coin issues are more complex than this, and lead one to examination of some factors in dating and characterization of coins from the Kushan Empire. The geographic spread of Ganesha to Kushan centers is mentioned briefly in the article text now. The problem is that characterization of what the figures on the coins mean is itself disputed. I followed the Kushan Empire article briefly when it became embroiled in conflict, but did not go back. In a nutshell the problem is that some sources interpret the figures as Hindu deities such as Shiva, while others lean toward Greek influences. The bottom line is that all of this coin material is a weak reed to lean upon for evidence. Buddhipriya 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Narain, A. K. "Gaṇeśa: The Idea and the Icon". Brown (1991), p. 27 is another source that differentiates between Ganesha and "visual representations of independent theriomorphic elephant deity [that] can be seen even before the Vedic times". He too emphasizes the non-Vedic origins of Ganesha, although clearly influenced by Vedic traditions (p. 29). Abecedare 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha not in the Vedas???

Explain? the verses from RigVeda mentioning names of Ganesha are not Ganesha's? When everyone in the world is chanting these mantras, it is mentioned otherwise. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your specific question is addressed at Ganesha#Vedic and epic literature and you can check the references for further information. Abecedare 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What's H. H. Wilson and Ludo Rocher thoughts to do here? It is what they think. I think these comments from H. H. Wilson and Ludo Rocher fit in articles like Ganesha allegory, Hindu allegory. There are 1000's of sources that clear sates that these mantras are to Lord Ganesha. I think we should not give WP:UNDUE importance to such comments. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 08:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article currently does a good job of debunking the idea that Ganesha appears in the Rig Veda. He does not appear there. The idea that Ganesha was a Vedic god comes up over and over again in devotee literature, and thus merits debunking. Buddhipriya 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points for Buddhipriya

(1) Rgvedic Ganapati cannot be proved to refer to Ganesha, but Buddhipriya is wrong in declaring that the idea that Ganesha was a Vedic god merits debunking. Buddhipriya should not be partial. There is no proof that Maitrāyani Samhitā and Taittiriya Āranyaka passages are interpolations. I believe Buddhipriya is searching for a particular types of evidences (i.e., opinions of writers like Krishan). Buddhipriya made over 1500 edits in this article and failed to notice a single Vedic reference, which were recently added after so much arguing. And now Buddhipriya has again set forth to debunk Maitrāyani Samhitā and Taittiriya Āranyaka, which are Vedic texts. Why Buddhipriya is so partial ? If Buddhipriya will try to discover the original meaning (starting from etymological) of the Vedic deities (e.g., Agni), Buddhipriya will stumble upon unexpected facts. (2) In Gaṇeśa: Unravelling an Enigma (p.19), Yuvraj Krishan says "Śiva as a god is non-existent in the Vedas" and adds "Śvetaśvatara Upaniṣad paves the way of for the fusion of Rudra and Śiva". Yuvraj Krishan either did not consult the Vedas and collected citations and opinions from other books, or deliberately lied (as in the case of Kumārasambhavam). As I mentioned above, following names of Śiva were found in two chapters of White Yajurveda : Śiva, Rudra, Mahādeva, Śambhu, Śankara, Paśupati, Tryambaka, Kapardin, Nīlagrīva (Nīlakantha) and a lot of other synonyms. There are reputed commentaries on Yajurveda (i.e., secondary sources), hence do not accuse me of WP:OR for stating these facts. Y. Krishan is a bad source. Instead of debunking the Vedas, Buddhipriya should debunk Yuvraj Krishan. Krishan believes even Gaṇeśa's father (Śiva) was not born during the Vedic Age, why Krishan would allow the son (Gaṇeśa) to exist ?-VJha ^Talk 19:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down everyone. Please.

I havent read every word of the debates above(dont fault me for that), but I have read a good amount. So here's my take.

I presume both Jha and BP have reliable sources to argue their case. Now Mr. Jha says that Ganesha is mentioned in the Vedas(Rig, Yajur.. whatever). bp says that all 'claims' of such mentions have been 'debunked'. He cites Krishnan for this.

Now, my question to Buddhipriya - do you know of any others other than Krishnan who 'debunk' what they say are only 'claims' and not 'facts'. If Krishnan is the only one we have, I'd be looking at something on the following lines for the prose -

"... The earliest mentions of Ganesha occur in the RigVeda... Krishnan however, dismisses these mentions as later interpolations..."(? thats his line, is it?)

If we have more people and not just Krishnan who 'debunk' the claim, then we'd probably word it on these lines -

"...Notwithstanding claims from some quarters of Ganesha finding mention in Vedic texts, it is widely held that the first mention of Ganesha is actually in the _____ dated to ____...."

Now, lets come to the question of the primary sources that Jha is quoting. Though it wouldnt be the right thing to use primary sources to write articles on wikipedia, I do believe that if we put our heads together instead of arguing endlessly on talk pages, we could incorporate it in the "notes" (as opposed to "references") where we can explain the polemic and thereby add value to the article.

In a nutshell, my take is - if the are reliable secondary sources which insist that Ganesha finds mention in Vedic texts, then we must mention it in the article. If there is opposition from other reliable sources to such a view, then we will mention that too.

Also, I did a little bit of my own searching and I found these -

Ganesha corresponding to Agni-Brihaspati, "Lord of Hosts"(ie., of the Maruts, the breaths,the powers of the soul) in the Rig Veda, and Skanda represent respectively the Sacerdotium(brahma).... - Heinrich Zimmer citing Alice Getty on page 138 of his book "Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization"

Ganesha is one of the most popular deities of the Hindu pantheon. According to certain authorities, he was a pre-Aryan deity of the aboriginals and his one ... - Manohar Laxman Varadapande on page5 of his book "History of Indian theatre".

Comments? Sarvagnya 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s: I re-read the article and it seems to me that my post above may be a little out of place/anachronistic, though not entirely so. But please do comment. Thanks.

Ganesha in RV

I have scanned Rgveda for all major synonyms of Ganeśa, and found that the two verses already cited in this article referring to Brahmaṇspati and Indra in which the term Ganapati is used) are the only verses which have some possibility of connection with Ganeśa, but neither Sāyana nor modern interpreters explicitly mentiont such a connection. RV.2.23.1 refers to Brahmaṇspati. However, various recensions of Yajurveda contain clear references to Śiva and Ganeśa and it is very difficult to declare all these verses as interpolations. -VJha 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my understanding:

• In RV As VJha has summarized above, all scholarly sources seem to agree that the two mentions of "Ganapati" in RV do not refer to Ganesha. Some also specifically point out that Ganapataya's retrospectively did draw this association, so it is not at all surprising that we find such claims in devotional literature. Note: To be clear, scholars consider the interpretations, and not the verses themselves, to be later interpolations.
• In YV There seem to be three opinions floating around about this (1) a la Roucher, the two verses are suggestive of Ganesha, (2) Sayana's opinion that they do refer to Ganesha, (3) Krishan's opinion that the verses themselves are late additions to YV.
• Vedic in general Besides discussion of specific verses, several sources say Ganesha is a post-Vedic deity who arose in 4-5 century (A.K. Narain; Krishan, Roucher et al), although possibly influenced by not only Vedic, but also pre-Vedic traditions (although some have consider even the "influence" to be speculative).

So, as far as I see, the only point of contention is the YV reference. We clearly have to mention all three opinions, but a wider survey of scholarly sources should be used to establish which (if any) is the common view, and which is/are outliers. Abecedare 14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Abecedare

• Abecedare has not changed his attitude to Yajurvedic evidence concerning Gaṇeśa. Previously, he called it my WP:OR. Now he wants to downplay the importance of Yajurvedic evidences. Had I entertained any partiality in this regard, I would not have mentioned that major synonyms of Gaṇeśa are absent in RV. Ludo Roucher said "very suggestive of Gaṇeśa" and Abecedare missed to read "very". Sāyan is more explicit, as Abecedare also notes. Krishan also accepts Sāyana's view (i.e., Krishan does not refute association with Gaṇeśa). None of these three say that aforementioned verses do not refer to Gaṇeśa. Hence, these Yajurvedic verses actually refer to or suggest Gaṇeśa is an academic consensus without any dissension and this fact needs to be mentioned in the article. All these Yajurvedic names refer to elephant-god and all these names were preserved and used in post-vedic period solely for Gaṇeśa, with a single exception Karāṭa), although Karaṭa which means elephant was retained.
• The only point of contention is Krishan's opinion that these verses are additions. Ludo Roucher puts these verses in the period before Śruti and Śāstras, which means Ludo Roucher clearly regards these verses to belong to the (Yajur-) Vedic period and not later additions (this is not my WP:OR or synthesis as Abecedare would like to show ; please read Ludo Roucher). Sayana also does not regard these verses to be additions. Krishan's view about Yajurvedic references to Gaṇeśa is a minority view and unfounded, because he merely states his bias. Abecedare is according UNDUE importance to Krishan. Abecedare deliberately forgets that I provided two proofs of Krishan's deliberate falsehood concerning Śiva in Yajurveda, and Kumārasambhavam, which can be verified from translations and commentaries, which are secondary sources. Abecedare tried to belittle this point by saying that it is off the topic, forgetting that Krishan used a distorted interpretation of Kumārasambhavam to prove a late emergence of Gaṇeśa.
• Abecedare rightly says that several sources say Gaṇeśa is a post-Vedic deity who arose in 4-5th century AD. But it is because Rgveda is generally taken into consideration by most of modern authors and archaic recensions (Maitrāyani Samhitā) of Yajurveda, which even brahmins have forgotten, are neglected. If some sources say Sun does not exist, should we accept these sorces as reliable ? If some sources say Gaṇeśa is a non-vedic deity, these sources are refuted by the primary source and their commentators. Instead of rectifying the remaining errors in this article, Abecedare wants to bury Yajurvedic evidences in the name of some modern sources which do not mention Yajurvedic evidences due to ignorance or bias. I am sorry to see that even after viewing evidences in Yajurveda, Abecedare wants to rely on unreliable sources. Archaic words in the aforementioned verses of Maitrāyani Samhitā cannot be proven to be later additions, because post-Vedic literature does not contain these words. The problem is that modern commentators have not discussed this point in the aforementioned verses. To be frank, the problem with Abecedare and Buddhipriya is that they have decided to be true to a particular type of authors, even if the views of these authors are proven to be biased and false. The problem of proper sourcing of articles related to Hindutva is plaguing almost all Wiki articles and it cannot be solved unless and until some editors stop misusing Wiki principle of verifiability, not truth. Abecedare is a sober person, and I still believe when he knows facts, he will not support falsehood. -VJha 18:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ... Vinay, I myself added those sentences about YV to the article, based on secondary sources that User:Redtigerxyz and I found, and which you are now citing. Surely, that demonstrates my bias against including YV in the article ?!

PS: You are welcome to rail against Krishnan and throw choice epithets such as thug, liar, etc and call his views deliberate falsehoods, biased, unfounded etc. But the fact remains that he is a respected scholar who has written books and peer-reviewed articles on the subject, and we have only your unpublished opinion against him, which as per wikipedia policy means zilch. I apologize if this comes across as rude, but you have been on wikipedia long enough to have gained an understanding of its policies and guidelines. Abecedare 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddha as Ganesha

"Bhaskararaya's commentary on the Ganesha Sahasranama says that this name means that the Buddha was an avatar of Ganesha. This interpretation is not widely known even among Ganapatya. Buddha is not mentioned in the lists of Ganesha's incarnations given in the main sections of the Ganesha Purana and Mudgala Purana."

This passage is my view can be regarded as WP:UNDUE. This interpretation is not popular in general Hindu faith, which identifies Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu and only not in Ganapatya as the article says. So this information need not be added.--Redtigerxyz 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree; though verifiable the Bhaskararaya's singular interpretation is being given undue importance. If Buddha as avatar of Ganesha was a popular belief held by Ganapatyas, but contradicted by scholars, then I could understand discussing the issue. But as it stands, we can use the "space" to discuss some more interesting topic.

Note though that the current sentence (after deletion of the above quoted text), "Bhaskararaya interprets his name as meaning Ganesha's ..." may need some minor rewording, so that it doesn't appear that we are misquoting or selectively citing Bhaskararaya ... or we can use some other reference altogether to cite the conventional view. Any suggestions ? Abecedare 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The rewording of the quote was highly selective, keeping one of the two interpretations but not the other. I have shortened the text but restored it to give both interpretations as given by Bhaskararaya. The section is about connections with Buddhi (intelligence, wisdom) so the appearance of the name Buddha in the sahasranama is clearly relevant to that subject, and the quote from Bhaskararaya also seems relevant. I think that the shortened version I have put in is a fair statement of the source. Regarding the significance of the Bhaskararaya commentary, it is the only authentic commentary on the Ganesha Purana version of the sahasranama that I know of. As the only commentator available for the work, his views deserve consideration. The appearance of the name Buddha in such an early verse of the sahasranama suggests that it was considered an important name at the time of composition of the Ganesha Purana. My personal opinion is that it was a conscious attempt by the Ganapatya who wrote the Ganesha Purana to emulate the Vaisnava avatara system, and specifically to annex Buddha (and hence the Buddhist sectarian groups) under the Ganapatya model of all other deities being non-different from Ganesha. Buddhipriya 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit finished

Today I finished proofreading of this article and corrected three minor spelling errors. I found some serious lapses in content, which I did not touch during copyedit sessions, and I intend to discuss these lapses later. -VJha 11:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)