Talk:Siddhivinayak Temple, Mumbai

Move of undocumented content to the talk page

I am moving these sentences here from the main page because they have no reliable sources. The only support for the statements is to a web site which appears not to cite any reliable sources. I have no information on the facts of the case. To improve the quality of Hinduism articles we must insist on reliable sources. Buddhipriya 17:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shri Keval Semlani, a local resident of Prabhadevi had filed a litigation in 2003 against the temple trust accusing the trust of giving away huge donations to organistions owned by politicians The High Court appointed a special enquiry committee led by Shri Vijay Tipnis, ex-magistrate, to examine the monetary affairs of the Siddhivinayak temple trust. The Report submitted by the committee exposed the trust and its corrupt affairs to the world.

References

Is it truly Ganesh or some other diety?

As every Hindu is fully aware that a Ganesh idol must have its trunk positioned to the left side of the idol. However, we see that the trunk of this idol is in right side. We all know that this Idol belongs to rusht Ganesh; meaning that it is not an idol of the usual Ganesh we Hindus worship. It is well known to all that worshiping rusht Ganesh is not recommended as it can be very hazardous to the worshippers. We also know that the Peswai of Maratha rule collapsed as Peshwa Madhawrao began to worship before idol of rusht ganesh. Some suggest that it is not true Ganesh that normally Hindus worship. There are other characteristics of true Ganesh such as big belly and having Aayudha (implements) in both upper hands but in this image we see that the belly of idol is not much. Also both upper hands do not hold any implements but index fingers are pointing to opposite directions. I very much feel some serious research into this matter is done. I also want to suggest that in this page a photo of the idol is shown, so that the points I have mentioned are observed properly. I am also wondering the date and other details about construction of the temple. As per my records the temple was built by a Brahman in 1730 and he was a wizard. More research I requst by other historians needed. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"As every Hindu is fully aware that a Ganesh idol must have its trunk positioned to the left side of the idol." No. This is inaccurate. Many iconographic treatises about a right-turned trunk. In fact, a Ganesha with a right-trunk is known as "Siddhivinayak", the Ganesha who is given of siddhis. Other comments also are pure WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation

This is a famous scam. Many news papers and websites talk about it. A sample link for reference - http://www.the-week.com/26feb26/currentevents_article6.htm

Bharat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.182.54.101 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Even I am aware of this report and the facts mentioned in the news are matching. Anit.pimple 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Move material to talk page for resolution:

Shri Keval Semlani, a local resident of Prabhadevi had filed a litigation in 2003 against the temple trust accusing the trust of giving away huge donations to organistions owned by politicians.

The High Court appointed a special enquiry committee led by Shri Vijay Tipnis, ex-magistrate, to examine the monetary affairs of the Siddhivinayak temple trust. The Report submitted by the committee exposed the trust and its corrupt affairs to the world.

'The most shocking aspect of the matter is that there is no method or principle followed for particular institutions. The only criteria for selection was recommendation or reference by trustees or the minister or a political heavy-weight, generally belonging to ruling party the committee said in the report submitted to the Bombay High Court. Buddhipriya 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This material is poorly sourced. The link to Hindu JanaJagruti Samiti goes to the home page for a web site that is a general site covering many subjects. The link does not directly take the reader to a reliable source for the charge in particular. Buddhipriya

The link to UNI Story is at least specific to the topic and may be worth mentioning. Is this the only link on the Internet that discusses this story? Buddhipriya 16:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue is quite hot in newspapers

Few links I could find are - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/954373.cms

http://news.oneindia.in/2006/12/13/state-to-finalise-guidelines-for-siddhivinayak-trust-funds-hc-1166016901.html

http://www.cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.asp?section=fromthepress&subsection=inbombay&xfile=March2006_inbombay_standard9156

Interesting point here is - Hindu Janajagruti Samiti is one of the lead organization fighting against the Trust.

Refer: http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=10&t=110

http://www.hindujagruti.org/videos/

There are many more links. So I guess it would be better idea to provide a link to that section i.e. http://www.hindujagruti.org/activities/campaigns/religious/save-temples/siddhivinayak/

So readers can easiliy access the latest updates on issues.

Anit.pimple 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing more sourcing for this story. I have added some of the links you provided to the article based on my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sources. Links to newspapers and wire service stories have more credibility than links to web sites operated by political organizations which may have strong POV issues. Links to online talk sites, blogs, forums, etc., are explicitly considered unreliable sources and thus should be excluded. Since evidence exists that there is a controversy, the fact that there is a controvery can be noted in the article. Presentation of the issues of the controversy must be done in a neutral manner that does not push one POV or the other. In an attempt to make the article fully neutral I have given it a copyedit to remove other unsourced statements related to the temple. Thank you for providing information on this matter.Buddhipriya 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What is copyedit? Anit.pimple 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Copyedit" is a term for going over an article mainly to improve readability and complaince with Wikipedia guidelines, as opposed to adding new content. It edits existing "copy" (text). See: Wikipedia:How to copy-edit. Please do not add multiple links to your web site. Furthermore, adding links to web sites you have personal connection with is considered POV pushing. Try to convince someone else to add the link, as you did me. Buddhipriya 18:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the term.Anit.pimple 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"HinduJagruti.org" is not a reliable source for this or any other wikipedia page. Please add back content about the protests only when you have a secondary, mainstream news media citation for it. Abecedare 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"HinduJagruti.org" is official website of organization Hindu Janajagruti Samiti. The website has video and image proofs on protests. I guess any news source can not provide better proofs. Many local news papers have reported the issue with photographs and many news channels has covered the protests. Some can be seen in videos.

There is one more point that in this and many cases local launguage newspapers are more influential and they cover the local stories. English media is considered to be secondary in those areas. This compels English media to target audiance from bigger area and thus their coverage is many times limited to national and International news.

Still as on demand, here are some links, available online and in English language.

http://www.cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.asp?section=fromthepress&subsection=inbombay&xfile=February2007_inbombay_standard12100

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/article/anti-hindu-laws/temples-bill/protests/temple-trusts-prepare-for-battle-royale.html (Story from Hindustan Times, Mumbai Edition (28 Sept 06, Page 6)) *This story is not accessible on internet but a hard copy is available. (This makes my above point clear that stressing upon a news report in such cases where proofs are presented by official website is not required and some times it can be an over-expectation too.)

Anit.pimple 17:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Anit.pimple for providing the links ! They put the issue in better perspective. The Hindustan Time article mentions the HJS protests in only the 7th paragraph and spends only 5 out of more than 60 lines on the topic (the Afternoon paper does not even mention the HJS protests at Siddhivinayak)... and this is only one of many articles written on the Siddhivinayak temple controversy . So specifically highlighting HJS in this article will clearly give it undue weight and violate wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and soap box. I would also request you to look up WP:RS, WP:EL and WP:COI to see why the website links you have added to so many pages are not appropriate for wikipedia. Abecedare 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but still fact remains that there are protests and HJS has protested in this matter. Don't you think such an important issue in history of Siddhivinayak Temple should be quoted here? And about articles, as I had clarified that it all depends on media how to project and present the issue. Local language news can not be utilized in this case. Anit.pimple 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the details of the court case as verified by reliable sources. The importance/relevance of the protests to this article is unverifiable at the moment. Abecedare 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the protest is not noteworthy. The article now says that there is criticism and documents it. That is adequate coverage of the issue using news media sources. Buddhipriya 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Timings and Tuesday significance

I thought that adding the significance of "Tuesday visits" is essential information. An unaware person may not be able to even see the deity if not pre-warned. I am not sure how to add this within the guidelines of Wiki, but the suggested text is:

The temple attracts a large crowd of devotees on Tuesday - considered to be a vey auspicious day. The temple is open from 0600 hours to 22.00 hours from Wednesday to Monday and longer on Tuesday. If planning to visit on a Tuesday, it is advised to plan ahead due to serpentine queues. (This information is also available on the [official site] http://www.siddhivinayak.org/dailyaartischedule.htm and also mentioned in the Times of india [Article]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/155861.cms)

Will welcome advise on how to add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumie (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

As the article already provides a link to the official site for the temple which provides hours of operation it seems that this is a detail that is best left out of the article. I also am unlcear on what Wiki policy may be on such details. Compare the exhaustive article on Disneyland which covers many things, but I did not see hours of operation (perhaps they are there, but I did not see them). Buddhipriya 21:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are the edits reverted so that history is not seen?

Hi,

Is there a reason why edits are reverted so that history is not viewed? This will result in spending time to deal with this new issue and then rewording the article, thus wasting time which could have been avoided.

..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)