Talk:Ganesha/Archive 4

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)

Vedic and epic literature: Need to mention the non-presence?

Is there any need to present the non-presence of Ganesh under Vedic and epic literature section? The section logically should be talking about the presence of Ganesha in Vedas and other literatures, but here, the article is currently talking about it's absence from the literature which is bit confusing and unexpected. This is making the literature unprofessional to read. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is neccessary to include the "non-presence" as per NPOV. The section discusses Heras's identification of Vedic Datin with Ganesha, Ganesha's association with Mahabharata and counter-arguments.--Redtigerxyz 12:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we keep these in 2 subsections, first section that's talking about what's currently being followed, and another section that starts with a title related to "counter-arguments", which will address the arguments. The flow of the article is bit down-to-earth other wise. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an issue with the fact that quite a few studies state that Lord Ganpati is not a Vedic god. I believe this is like fifth attempt by you in a different manner to remove this from the article. Get over it would be my short and simple suggestion. However, to answer your question, I think that it is very important that it is mentioned in this article. Many people do not know this, including Hindus. I found it to be very interesting and insightful. --Blacksun 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not someone who believes in Suppressing any information. False will be automatically debunked. If eminent authors have said that Ganesha is not a Vedic God, it is necessary that they prove it and not just make fictitious statements. I've seen articles having a separate section for counter arguments I've only suggested the same. It is good that we are informed that there have been examples of books/literatures those are quoting fictitious/ridiculous statements which are not backed up with sufficient proofs and am really surprised about they passing through editorial reviews. I've been questioning editors here for a long time to show proofs to back up these statements. Which so far has not been done. So, for my reasoning I am only updated about some false editors and false publishers. Yes, certainly they are needed to be present in this very article, or otherwise how would we (public) have known about them?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest looking up the citations if you are curious about more details? That is what they are there for. If you disagree with this, I am sure there are others out there who disagree too. Then your job is to simply find valid references for this. I also think that the text makes it clear that it is different theories proposed and also shows alternative arguments.--Blacksun 11:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the order to suit the title of the section. Kindly comment. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've just read page 56 brown it is hardly talking about the proof. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 07:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

other aperancces

Should we add somthing about him apearing in the simpsons?Vadahata2 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, that was quite funny that one :) BV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.222.85 (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

American culture

I am kind of surprised that an article this in depth totally ignores the fact that Ganesh is probably the best known Hindu deity in American culture. Just one instance of which is the Simpson's episode that included him. But just in general, Americans who couldn't tell the difference between Indira and Mahatma Gandhi recognize the name Ganesh. That is worthy of note in an English encyclopedia. 75.3.226.166 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article notes that he is one of the best known dieties; there is no need to mention American culture in particular?59.180.170.155 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe a note on "Western culture" might be more appropriate, but you'd have to provide good citations. Brutannica (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm embarrased to admit that was the reason Ganesha was the first Hindu god I'd heard of... "Mr. Simpson, please do not offer my god a peanut." I haven't seen that episode since the 1990s. --Bobak (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On Main page

Any suggestions for a particular date for Ganesha to appear on the front page and we can approach Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.--Redtigerxyz 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ganesh Chaturthi is not for a long while. Diwali is too soon. Hmm --Blacksun 10:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest "1 Jan": as Ganesha is god of beginnings and 1 January is beginning of the year. or "Ganesha Jayanti" which is Magha Chaturthi according to Hindu calender; which will in late Jan or early February. (I dont know the exact date yet as I havent bought next year' calender) Ganesh Jayanti is birthday of Ganesha as the son of Aditi and Kashyapa in one of his avtars. (Ganesh Chaturthi being as son of Parvati and Shiva)--Redtigerxyz 10:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 1 January is a good idea. Kkrystian 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is going to be a tough sell but worth a try. --Blacksun 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, seeing the reactions, that Ganesha Jayanti would be a better product. I will let you know the date as soon as possible.--Redtigerxyz 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha Jayanti is on Sunday: 10 February, 2008.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, as well. Kkrystian (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha on 30 December, issue closed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just came by this as a featured article and noticed a ridiculous bias in the following statement, "Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography." How is the Virgin Birth of Jesus considered a "belief" and apparently the Hindu religion stories are "mythology"? I am not religious, but I believe that the definition difference between mythology and religion is just that mythologies are no longer practiced or are dead religions. Please try and create some balance in dealing with religions from a NPOV. I would fix this myself but the Knight's Templar Wikis would probably change it back. --Thehighlndr (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your asserted belief about the relative meanings of the words "mythology" and "religion" is somewhat ideosyncratic. Another widely used meaning of "myth" is something of which belief in it is more important to the believers then whether or not it is historically true, and need not necessarily be a religious matter. For example, the Myth of the Battle of Britain (in which Great Britain was at one point saved from invasion in WW2 "solely" by the heroic exploits of "a few" Spitfire pilots - at best only partially true in several respects) is an important factor contributing to British self-identity; hence it is mythical as well as (partly) historical.

To address your religious example, what is "religion" or "myth" about the births of Ganesh and Jesus depends on the currently accepted (by whom?) status of what is written in canonical tests and/or widely believed (by whom?) about those events, matters subject to debate and change. You may be aware, for example, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican Church, has recently reminded Anglicans that several widely and long-held beliefs about the birth of Jesus are myths rather than matters of (his) canonical religious faith: I believe these myths (which, remember, are not necessarily untrue) included his mother's virginity as well as the attendence of "3 kings", the mid-winter date of the event, and so on.

In short, what you see as "ridiculous bias" seems to me (a western non-Christian, for what it's worth), as a rather subtle interpretation of meanings on your part. I don't say your concerns shouldn't be addressed by rewording if appropriate and possible - this would I imagine require a fairly extensive knowledge of Hindu "canonical texts", non-canonical beliefs, and hierarchical authority (apologies for the western-biased terminology!) While I certainly do not possess such knowledge, you may well, so go ahead and propose some specific changes.195.92.67.74 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Directly from Wiki on Mythology, "In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe to be based on fact but which is not true. However, the field of mythology does not use this definition...." which is great except that Wiki is used mostly by the general public. Using this term more heavily for some religions like Hindu and avoiding on others like Christianity is like the term "Pagan" to describe any religions that were not Christianity. Usage determines definition, not the other way around. Either get all of the top world religions Wiki's to use an equal balance and usage of Mythology or change most discussions to belief with commentary about the historical accuracy of any events in each religion.

For the record...it is concensus among Christian Biblical scholars that all of the Birth Stories of Jesus are complete fiction or myths designed to tie into existing messiah myths at the time. This is easy to verify and was shown on A&E's "Mysteries of the Bible" and Jesus specials almost every year. They have also confirmed that Jesus was most likely born in the summer or possibly in the fall. If the Archbishop of Canterbury uses myth in the same manner and separates it from Canon...Wiki's usage on large portions of other religions is calling them fiction to the average Christian or average viewer based on it's actual modern usage. BTW: I am agnostic, so I only want balance and NPOV on Wiki for these Religions. I would be amused to call them all Mythologies, but we have enough wars already;) --Thehighlndr (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)