Talk:Ganesha/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

overlap of text in the Aum section

I noticed that the text in the Aum section overlapped the picture (in the same section). I would have fixed it, but do not know how to. Could someone look into the same? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.80.82 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA ANY1 CAN WRITE NYTHING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.113.51 (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Miracle

Main Article: Hindu Milk Miracle

When I saw that the Ganesh article was featured, I decided to read it. While reading, I remembered hearing two Indian friends of mine discussing the "Ganesh milk miracle". The milk miracle wasn't described on the article, so I decided to do a little research and put up a short summary, hoping that it would be added to. I never said it happened. I said, in true NPOV style, that it was said to have happened. I included a reference. And it got summarily deleted by somebody who apparently decided to delete the section because he had never heard of it. Why did I put a reference with newspaper articles and all there at all if my poor little section was to meet with this dreadfully undignified fate? This is the sort of thing which makes a certain percentage every day of new Wikipedia editors give up after their first article and old Wikipedia editors quit after many. Aaargh! David G Brault (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Miracle

Main Article: Hindu milk miracle(HEHE)

On September 21, 1995, miraculous milk-drinking by Ganesha statues is reported to have occurred all over India after a man living in New Delhi dreamt the night before that Ganesha craved a little milk. [1] Upon awakening, he rushed in the dark before dawn to the nearest temple, where a skeptical priest allowed him to proffer a spoonful of milk to the small stone image. Both watched in astonishment as the milk allegedly disappeared, miraculously consumed by the deity. [2] Within hours news of the phenomenon had spread all over India that Ganesha was accepting milk offerings. [3] All over India, it was reported that when people would hold a spoonful of milk up to the trunk of a Ganesh statue, Ganesh would miraculously drink the milk. [4] Tens of millions visited temples in hopes of witnessing the miracle. So much milk was purchased -more than a million liters of milk was purchased in New Delhi alone, and New Delhi's stores were temporarily emptied of milk. [5] The phenomenon is reported to have stopped after 24 hours. [6]

Section removed as this incident is not particular to Ganesha nor it is important to spread or influence of Ganesha worship. Moreover the refs promote a similar site http://www.milkmiracle.com/index.html.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A whole section is probably against WP:UNDUE, but a line, or at least a See Also entry on the Hindu milk miracle would definitely add value to the article. deeptrivia (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even a see also Hindu milk miracle is an undue. Is Hindu milk miracle the only miracle attributed to Ganesha? there are n no. of them including visions to devotees, him emerging in stones and tree trunks etc.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the guy who wrote Hindu milk miracle, I'd agree that a section on the event is *way* too much. I'm ambivalent about the see also, especially as statues of Ganesha weren't the only ones involved. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on Hinduism. In fact, I'm taking a class on Asian relgions and the textbook is Living Religions" Eastern Traditions by Mary Pat Fisher (Prentice-Hall, 2003). In her section on Ganesha, the milk miracle is mentioned prominently, the only miracle by Ganesha she mentions. Doesn't that argue for a brief section in the article, citing Fisher and others? 71.235.66.63 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing link issues

The Courtright 1985 link in Note 11 doesn't work because the Courtright entry under References isn't Harvard referencing style. That is, it uses {{cite book}}, generating an ID of "Reference-Courtright-1985", rather than {{Citation}} generating the desired "CITEREFCourtright1985". Notes 123, 157 and 170 have a similar problem with Krishan 1981–1982. I don't know which of the paired entries is better modified, and have left them unchanged for those more attuned to the proper article format (though I strongly suspect changing the corresponding 'References' entries is more standard and appropriate). -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this issue. I have changed the reference template to {{Citation}}, as you suggested, since it works better with Harvard referencing. Currently the article does not use the {{Harvnb}} template consistently, but I suppose we can rectify that soon. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a primary editor, nice work on the citation change. My sole, and quite minor, remaining complaint is that many notes in the article use only a last name and page number. This is fine except where there are two separate references with the same last name (same person, actually) of Krishan. In the absence of a year, it's difficult to determine which of the two references are being noted.
I probably wouldn't have noticed, or bothered to mention it if I had noticed, except I was trying to track down whether the temple mentioned at Gujrat and the one at Gujarat are the same. The article's wikilink for Gujrat goes to a Pakistan location, whereas the subject Gujarat links to an Indian one (no Gujarat wikilink in the article, however). If different cities, it's obviously a different temple, but it wasn't clear to me that the Gujrat and Gujarat spelling difference was intentional. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the Gujarat misspelling. I also began the Harvardization of the references since that would also take care of the missing years, however that process "broke something" (see the end of the "References" section and the "External links" in this version). Do you know what the cause could be; is there a limit on the number of templates that can be transcluded on a page ?
I'll take another stab at the revisions later this week, or on the weekend. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is moderately bizarre. I can change the References breaking point of your revision by inserting valid Citation templates before the broken area, as if there was a hard limit on Citation template count being encountered, and not a malformed something getting in the way. Hmmm. More research needed. Michael Devore (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism" really a WP:RS

Removed: "Others interpret the ridiculous image of an elephant mounted upon a mouse as a symbol for the human body, which somehow is able to carry about a being with great powers of wisdom and compassion in spite of, and often unknown to, itself. <ref: Johnsen, pp. 165-167

  • Johnsen, Linda (2002), The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism, Indianapolis: Alpha, ISBN 0-02-864227-9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the edit was in good faith, but inappropriate for this developed article and you just beat me to the reversion by seconds. I looked up the book on amazon and the description of Ganesha and the mouse is very perfunctory, 2/3rds of a page long (page 166) and written in a semi-humorous/semi-serious tone that makes it difficult to judge what is meant seriously ("Ganesha is a remover of obstacles. After all, if you are lost in a thick jungle just follow an elephant"); and of course no sources are cited and sidebars notes are generically attributed to "Sages say" (and apparently they have commented on Hindu milk miracle). Overall, not a reliable source on the subject. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable source, per Redtigerxyz and Abecedare. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

WIKIPEDIA

wikipedia can be written by anyone so if your doing homework u could be getting everything wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.113.51 (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha - Alternative History

The reason that Ganesha appears to have unclear origin than some other gods is the mixing of myth and facts as is usual for India. Ganesha was a king of present day Bhutan (which was called Bhoot-sthan in derogatory terms by the people of plains). He was the first king from that region who created disciplined army by forming units (Gan) and appointing hierarchical command and control structure. Despite of his modern forces and modern thoughts, the plains-people (from Gangetic plains) refused to acknowledge him as an equal. This infuriated Ganesha and he started invading the kingdoms of the plains.

Soon, Ganesha's superior armies overran many plains kingdoms. This forced the plains kings to convene and accept that Ganesha is their equal and in all rites (like Yadnyas), he and his people will get equal treatment. By this time, Ganesha was in no mood to accept jsut equality, he wanted prominence and he got it. The tradition started of first acknowledging Ganesha in every ceremony. The reason why Ganesha is also known as 'Vighna-karta' is 'cause of his invasions of plains-people who derided him.

Ganesha was relatively short and fat with big nose. He was carricatured as one who looks like an elephant. Over time, his stories became epics and he was duly turned into a God. His original qualities of discipline, braveness, intelligence were converted into qualities of the God and he was worshipped for them.

Of course, this may not sit well with some, but this is the version that I believe to be true.

Ref: Books by Satolekar Guruji of Baroda (I wish I had them with me to quote the exact book, but will do so when I find them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.237.35 (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ganapati temples are to be seen all over the world at various diffrent part of map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.65.194 (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrik Ganesh

The article in the iconography or any other section does not talk about Tantrik ganapati. It is one of the importat iconographies. There is a temple of Trishunda ganapati in Pune which is a Tantric ganapati. Kaveri (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God of worldly wisdom ?

I have heard Ganesha referred to as the "god of worldly wisdom". Unfortunately, I can't remember where... possibly the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts... not sure. I didn't see any mention of this moniker in the article -- anyone know ?76.113.105.186 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book promotion

following sentence under Rise to prominence looks more line a promotion of book. Please consider to reframe sentence. Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations ...... --Onef9day Talk! 01:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Is Ganesha a Male or Female? Or both?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.148.194 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references

Version in question: [1]

Issues:

  • Removal of "Possible influences" section: Theories about Vinayakas and Yaksha are repeated in multiple references.
  • Temples: Split of the sentence (as in current version) facilities softer reading, then an extremely long list in 1 sentence as in version in question
  • Section of referenced "Ganesh Chaturthi" section, which summarizes chief observances of the festival and gives information of its conversion from an family affair to a public extravaganza, as it is today. Worship by Durva, red flowers, red sandalwood and modakas are not restricted to "Ganesh Chaturthi", but are part of any worship of Ganesha. The section in Version in question is unreferenced and has WP:OR and gives WP:UNDUE details about observances. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh=female?

I always heard of Ganesh as being female, as I was in a Hindu household and saw a very interesting picture of the goddess Ganesh. Can someone confirm this? 96.38.72.252 (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's Ganeshi/Ganeshini, the Matrika Shakti of Ganesha.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, yes or no on "worldly wisdom" ? I think it's kinda rude to just remove someone's valid question wihtout even addressing it (whoever you are...)!68.35.66.170 (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but laugh at the above - somebody who edits WP anonymously uses the phrase "whoever you are" for an editor who has single-handedly created numerous featured and good articles on WP. Nmisra (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While that does look funny, you are flat-out wrong. I don't know who removed that question, and that's the whole point. You assume that I do. But this is the section where it was posted. So you see ? 68.35.66.170 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ganesha is male. The anon seems to be confused with Ganeshi/Ganeshini. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redtigerxyz. Almost universally in mainstream Hinduism, including the Krishna Yajurveda (as per Sayana's commentary), Mahabharata, numerous Puranas, popular iconography and popular culture Ganesha is a male deity. The female form you may have seen may be either the deity in Japanse Buddishm - see here or it may be the rare form of Vainayaki or Ganeshani who is identified as the Shakti of Ganesha - see here. Nmisra (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good practice to clarify an article whenever confusion arises on a talk page. One should not assume that misunderstanding arises only from the reader. Perhaps the male/female distinction should be addressed in the lead, with links as appropriate. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out Tamil script part from Infobox

Why is Tamil script and transliteration required in Infobox? There are more Bengali/Telugu/Marathi speakers than Tamil speakers. Devnagari, the script of Sanskrit, is sufficient and should be the norm for deities in Hinduism. Nmisra (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/pages/God-Ganesha/322859374422582 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.211.99 (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure that the word "worship" is appropriate.

My understanding is that Ganesha is an aspect of "God"...though the word worship doesn't seem a correct translation from sanskrit. Maybe a better term could be used. 68.111.177.169 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Chris Cravens 02/27/2012[reply]

And do you have a suggestion? Adoration, Revere, Idolise, Pray, what? And what is the Sanskrit word that you want to be translated here? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Revered" = रेवेरेद ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs

Please leave the invalid but useful ISBNs in the template {{Listed Invalid ISBN}}. This allows the ISBNs to remain available for users' searches while informing other editors and bots that the numbers don't need tagging or fixing. These templated ISBNs need to be placed in the id field in the {{cite book}} template because the isbn field automatically applies linking that is not compatible with the listed-invalid template. Thanks.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the term invalid in this context means only that the ISBN associated with the book does not comply with the formula that determines valid ISBNs. See the article International Standard Book Number for more information.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The isbns are correct. The worldcat shows the books on a search. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBNs are associated with those titles, so they are correct in that sense. But a valid ISBN follows a particular mathematical formula as described in the article International Standard Book Number. ISBNs that do not adhere to this formula may be considered broken by other editors or bots. As noted above, placing these ISBNs in the template {{Listed Invalid ISBN}} lets others known that these mathematically malformed numbers are useful and not in need of fixing.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Resolved
 – ~Thanks, 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the lead doesn't seem to comply with Wikipedia:MOS/LEAD, and is almost unreadable for [this] English reader. Most of the name-related information belongs in the section: Etymology and other names.  Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the subject to make proper edits myself.  ~Thank you for your attention on this matter, ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict to chief names. Etymology or Iconography have the info. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting references on Vahanas?

The section here says that in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesh rides a mouse in five of the eight listed incarnations; however, Mudgala Purana#The eight incarnations of Ganesha cites only four incarnations in which Ganesh rides a mouse: Ekadanta, Mahodara, Gajavaktra, and Lambodara. The eighth listed incarnation, according to that article, is Dhumravarna, in which that article says the vahana is a horse. This section also says "mouse (shrew)", but the other article says simply a mouse and others seem to reference a mouse or a rat but not a shrew, is there authority for a fifth listed incarnation in the Mudgala Purana in which Ganesh rides a mouse, is that Dhumravarna or some other incarnation, and is there authority for the mouse being variously a shrew or that the Sanskrit word used in the Mudgala Purana can include the shrew?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mouse/rat/shrew all are indistinct in Sanskrit. Generally mouse/rat is used. Checked ref. Dhumra-varna has mouse vahana. Dhumra-ketu of Ganesha Purana has horse. The editor seems to be confused between the two.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead second para

How is the second para in lead WP:POV? Ganesha is widely worshipped as the Lord of obstacles and beginnings. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph: Ganesha is known by the other common name Ganapati. The other two names are not pan-Hindu. They may be synonyms of Ganesha, but regional and not common across Hindu cultures. WP:UNDUE.
  • Move other names to Etymology section.
Agreed partly though Vinayaka and its variants are pan-Indian. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few problems with the second paragraph:

  • 1) Unnecessary capitalization goes against MOS:CAPS.
Agreed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) You have stated once that Ganesha is the remover of obstacles. Repeating 3 times with the Sanskrit names is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV pushing. Also, Lead is just a summary. Move Sanskrit terms to Etymology section.
"remover of obstacles" is not equal to "Lord of Beginnings and Lord of Obstacles". While his role as the remover of obstacles is primary, he is also the creator of obstacles and is to be propitiated so that he does not create them in one's path so he is Lord of obstacles too. Obstacles is not beginnings. So Lord of beginnings needs to be put.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - lord of beginnings should be there.
  • 3) Ganesha is not considered the patron god of arts and sciences. He is god of obstacles, intellect and wisdom.
Besides the Heras ref, [2],[3]--12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Redtigerxyz Talk
The first reference is hardly admissible. It is a crossword puzzle, not a statement of fact - see Wikipedia policy on admissible references. As regards your second reference, that is really just one view. It is not the common prevalent view in Hinduism. Saraswati is considered the Hindu patron god of letters, knowledge and science. Vishnu is considered the patron god of medicinal sciences. Lakshmi is the patron god of wealth. Ganesh is the patron god of intellect and wisdom. So Ganesh is obviously seen with Lakshmi and Saraswati in many depictions, but stating that he is the patron god of arts and sciences is Ganesh POV. Samenewguy (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the linking. See p. 201 in ref 1. Multiple references about about his role as patron of letters, arts and sciences. No where do the references say that this is a Ganapatya/Ganesha POV. The letters (including mantras and literature) and learning association streams from his role as a scribe and his association with Buddhi and Om. In writing sessions, he is almost always invoked with Saraswati. Besides references already in the article (lead and main text) and on talk, [4]

[5], [6]-[7]-[8], [9] [10], [11]Redtigerxyz Talk 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

Third paragraph:
  • 1) Too much information - summarize.
There are only 4 sentences. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) "...in a clearly recognizable form" is redundant - the idea is already conveyed by the word "distinct" and also the first line of second paragraph - WP:UNDUE pushing.
distinct: agreed. "the first line of second paragraph" Besides Martin-Dubost, [12], [13]
  • 3) "His popularity rose quickly" is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV.
    Samenewguy (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it will be no harm. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and other names

Please edit the first line under "Etymology and other names". The images are not visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav Sharman (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the problem by temporarily removing {{IAST|aṣṭavināyaka}} from the image caption, which seemed to be causing the problem. There are other places in the article where the current TFD tag seems to causing a mess with the text, but we may simply have to wait for the TFD to close in a few days for that issue to be resolved (since it would be infeasible to manually remove and later reinsert the IAST template from this and 1000s of other articles). Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Only just discovered this one. Excellent article and considered discussion made it very helpful. Hats off to everyone.Manytexts (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd line in article

When I linked to this article, I noticed a strange line (just underneath the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line) that read "Don't use Wikipedia for ur hwk haha." After Googling "ur hwk haha," I concluded this must be some kind of spam edit. I logged in and went to edit it out, but then I could not see it in the edit window. I linked to the article in another tab, and it failed to appear. I then logged out, linked to the article, and it no longer appeared. Just thought I'd mention this. ShinyAeon (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more info--when logged out, I linked to the Ganesha article again in yet another tab, and I saw the line again. Only this time I noticed it took the place of the entire introductory section--that is, it is the only thing appearing between "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and the Contents box. Once again, however, when I went to edit it (staying logged out) it failed to appear.

Basically, it is keeping the entire first section (and image) from showing up to anyone not logged in. I have no idea how to fix this, so I leave this note to alert someone who can. ShinyAeon (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect "ur hwk" is short for "your homework," and thus interpret the interpolated line to mean: "Don't use Wikipedia for your homework, haha."Juxian (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I gathered that, too — the problem isn't the obscurity of the message, but the fact that it is apparently capable of hiding an entire section of the article from anyone who isn't logged in...and seems impervious to being edited out. ShinyAeon (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesa (dab) in hatnote

To editor Redtigerxyz: Some readers may come to this article by use of the "Ganesa" spelling and would be looking for the genus article. To give those readers a pointer to that article, isn't it a good idea to link to the disambiguation page in the hatnote? Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Redtigerxyz: Thank you! I understand your most recent edit and agree with you. Thank you for the IAST education and for leaving the hatnote this time. Gaṇeśa, sans diacritical marks, is a good search term. – Paine  15:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images Removed

Images:

  • Removed as hands, ears, attributes broken. No addition to iconography.
    Removed as hands, ears, attributes broken. No addition to iconography.
  • Too long; layout disturbed. Images in next section move down and are disturbed. Image crowding.
    Too long; layout disturbed. Images in next section move down and are disturbed. Image crowding.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eshwar.om, please respect WP:IQUEUE ("Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They may even overlap.") and STOP adding images that disturb the layout. Due to image crowding in the first section (addition of File:WLA lacma Tamil Nadu Ganesha.jpg), the first two images in Iconography are being displaced.--Redtigerxyz Talk 08:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC) User:Redtigerxyz, WP:IQUEUE(If a contributor believes such a queued image to be essential to the article, despite the lack of text, he or she may decide to put it back in. However, he or she should not simply revert the article to its previous state, but make an attempt to re-size the images ).File:WLA lacma Tamil Nadu Ganesha.jpgnot disturb the layout too.Eshwar.omTalk tome 08:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eshwar.om, can you please justify why this is essential to the article? Now, we have four images from Tamil side, a very loop-sided image selection.

  • Celebrations of Ganesh by the Tamil community in Paris
  • Ganesha, Karpaka Vinayakar Temple, 400 CE, Tamil Nadu.
  • Ganesha, 12th century,Tamil Nadu, India.
  • Tanjore-style painting of Ganesha

Redtigerxyz Talk 09:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont say like tamil side ,they are from differnt time scale.Even Ancient combodia and Thailand,java,Indonesia, srilanga also Tamil influenced.but they are not same country. Please dont say again like 'Tamil side'.UP,MP are different states.but hindi is common mother tongue for both.so the files from various dynasty and also various place .they spoken tamil language means what we do?we will not neglate that?am i correct?if all hindu people speaking same language then will we neglate all files.no right?!in other hand i am not telling all hindu people knows tamil.but the files from different place and diffent period.telungana and Andra shares same language and also same state before but now separate like tamilnadu and kerala.so simply saying tamilside which is not acceptable.Eshwar.omTalk tome 10:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaple In England Turns Ganshesha into a christian Gargoyle and hangs it up next to a rat with a ear on its back

Could we add a new section here in which list the missuse and the tainting of the artistic expression of the character Ganesha for the purposes of others which cause offense to hindus and bring awarness to this on wiki?

So far i found the following...

1.Ganesha Gargoyle in a chaple in England 2.Australia beer label ganesha 3.Urban Outfitters Ganesh socks

http://www.merinews.com/article/hindus-upset-at-mounting-of-lord-ganesha-grotesque-on-windsor-chapel/15902320.shtml http://ibnlive.in.com/news/australian-brewery-juxtaposes-ganeshas-face-lakshmis-body-on-beer-bottle/432993-79.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/urban-outfitters-ganesh-socks_n_4454077.html92.236.96.38 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock[reply]

Highly WP:UNDUE. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE Per Redtigerxyz. These incidents do not even meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria for a separate article. Gizza (t)(c) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thai and Sri Lankan names of Ganesha

The sentences about Ganesha's name in Thai and Sinhalese are unsourced and not in the original FA version. The Burmese name is sourced but was also not in the original FA. I think the worship of Ganesha in Southeast Asia is important to know but the names in their languages is undue and excessive per WP:Summary Style. For comparison Jesus is widely worshipped in many countries and has different names in many languages but not all of them are stated on the main article. Maybe Names of Ganesha can be created for detail. I personally think the Sanskrit, Buddhist Tantric and Tamil names is enough, just like in the FA. Gizza (t)(c) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

minor editing notes for average readers

While this article on Ganesh was well researched and footnoted it seemed so focused on etymology it failed to miss in the first 5 paragraphs that Ganesh is widely known as the God of Wisdom,Learning, Success, and yes, The Remover Of Obstacles ( and the faith that we can remove obstacles). I am no expert but an editor doesn't have to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.199.39 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganesh, folk art, Bharatiya Lok Kala Museum, Udaipur, India.jpg Suggestion

Hi, I suggest to include this image, which is of much better quality than File:ShriMayureshwar Morgaon.jpg. I can't find the name of the other characters. Any idea? Yann (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayureshwar has much more encyclopaedic value as the icon of one of the most famous Ganesha temples, which is the centre of his Ganapatya sect. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ownership

i believe that users some time thinking owner of the article.they wont allow modify,re insert missed files— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshwar.om (talk • contribs) 19:51, April 28, 2015

I assume you are referring to me and my reverts of your following three edits:
If there are reliable sources dating the Ganesha idol at Karpaka Vinayakar Temple, those can be discussed here, but the edit-warring, POV pushing and use of poor quality sources in an FA must stop. Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide reliable sources .even Adi vinayaga temple like human face form of very ancient ganesha temple also there in south indian state of Tamilnadu .i am wondering that are all not presented in the article.might be removed?!.iam not sure.Eshwar.omTalk tome 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eswar, if you consider only the content discussion... there is no ownership issues here, I think you are just a little upset at not having your way. Have a discussion and then make edits the way you want... when you have taken others in confidence. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

karpagavinyagar file added by me in the month of july 2014.file removed in the month of december 2014 by user BOt.reason is file was deleted from commons.from july 2014 to dec 2014 there are no of edits done by various users.user Abecedare also did the edits 4 times b/w the particular period in various times.but his eyes opening only now when i am adding the file again from common.may i know the reason why he is not allowing me to edit the first appearance sec of this article?!i am wondering!:)Eshwar.omTalk tome 18:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

may i know the reason why he is not allowing me to edit the first appearance sec of this article? I did just that in the edit-summaries, on my talkpage and right above. In short, the problem is that you don't have reliable sources for the claim you are adding.
Aside: there may also be copyright issue with the image being added. Eshwar, can you explain, how you created this image that you have marked as your "own work"? Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if files faces any copyright issues then this is not a place to discuss. i hope do you know that.Eshwar.omTalk tome 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The file you were adding to this article did turn out to be a copyvio along with a dozen others you had uploaded as "own work". They all have been deleted from commons (where your account is currently blocked). Is there anything more to discuss here at the moment? Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again your talking unnecessary things here.that is wikipedia commons.your only saying i am blocked there.do you thing blocked user can discuss about his own work in wiki commons until the block period get to finish.is it possible?if you know then let me know.thank you.Eshwar.omTalk tome 00:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

Some notes on material that was recently added to the article:

  1. Adi Vinayaka: This iconographic representation may be worth noting in the article, but doesn't need a section of its own (or details, unrelated to Ganesha, such as "According to 7th century Saiva Nayanmar saint Campantar,the Nandrudayan Vinayaka Temple is one of the oldest Hindu temples in Tiruchirappalli city,Tamilnadu He also sung the songs for this temple. For the past 83 years annual music festival conducted here"). Also needs better sourcing both for verification and for deciding on due weight. I have condensed and copy-edited the material, and tagged it with with {{Better source}}. We need to research scholarly literature on the subject to provide beter context and determine whether this information is important enough to retain, or is just trivia.
  2. Vinayagar Agaval: This is poorly source, and undue given the number of hymns composed praising Ganesha. At a minimum, we would need secondary scholarly sources attesting to the hymn's importance to Ganesha worship (not the other way around, since notability is not a symmetric relation), in order to include this in the article.
  3. Tirumandhiram: This and this are even more clearly undue, given that the text is primarily dedicated to Shiva and only contains an opening invocation to Ganesha (the wikipedia article already notes the fact the Ganesha, as the lord of beginnings, is commonly propitiated at the start of ventures and Tirumandhiram is just one example amongst thousands of this). Also note that the cited sources are irrelevant/being misrepresented/unreliable in that the two that two of them discuss Tirumandhiram w/o mentioning Ganesha (not surprising given the focus of the text); while the third, which is a non-scholarly English translation of Tirumandhiram by an "Internationally known Indian economist and planner" and published by sectarian, religious publisher, is a primary and unreliable source that doesn't even contain the Tamil text added to the article.

It would really help if User:Eshwar.om would discuss (substantial) future additions to the article on the talkpage, since his edits are getting tendentious and disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything added from Tamil Nadu or Southern India side then your saying undue,tendentious and disruptive.Have u read fully about undue,tendentious and disruptive.Let me know?!Eshwar.omTalk tome 19:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user Abecedare not coming here for discussion.anyway answered for you click.Maintain one place for discussion is good so.isn't it?Eshwar.omTalk tome 17:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: While our article on Uthrapathiswaraswamy Temple says that the idol there depicts Ganesha in human form, the ref you cited doesn't say so, and the image in Brown also shows a elephant-head, four arms etc. Am I missing something? Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Red, for the clarification here and, more importantly, in the Uthrapathiswaraswamy Temple article. I have copyedited/shortened the footnote a bit since the details of Vatapi Ganapati are not relevant here and are available in the temple article. Abecedare (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess Vināyakī

Reference says //Agrawala, Prithvi Kumar (1978), Goddess Vināyakī: The Female Gaṇeśa, Indian Civilization Series, Varanasi: Prithivi Prakashan//Has it removed from the article?!Eshwar.omTalk tome 01:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference section clean up

I have removed the following works from the article's reference since they don't appear to be actually used as sources in the article. Placing them here, in case I removed any in error, and for potential future use:

Related: any support or objections to converting the article to {{sfn}} style referencing so that the references in the Notes section can be linked to the full citation in the Reference section? To be clear, I am not proposing changing "For X see ..." style used in the article, which I find very useful and informative. Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First appearance

Ganesha's First appearance is a female form?is it?!!
if it is yes then why those information are missing in this article?!

And i have suspicion,why references moved from article's page to here ?!.is moved references has contains the information which i said above.is any body pushing Pov in secretly?!!Eshwar.omTalk tome 02:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have to look on that.Eshwar.omTalk tome 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha in Maharashtra

I have reverted User:Eshwar.om's recent removal of sourced content related to Ganesha worship in Maharashtra. Secondary sources, already cited in the article clearly establish the importance of mentionng Ashtavinayak and Tilak's role in making Ganesha Chaturthi a public celebration. If Eshwar wants to make a cse for removal of the content that is both solidly sourced and reviewed multiple times in the GA, PR, LOCE, and FA process, he can do so here and gain consensus.
PS: Note this related ANI report I filed about Eshwar's disruptive editing of this and other articles, including the most recent series of edits. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


dont you think these are all non sense.iam not criminal and you are not a police.you said I filed about Eshwar's disruptive editing .every one can file for any.no need to mention that and all here..am i correct know?!. your information based on Ganesha in Maharashtra means why cant you write this info under sec called Ganesha in Maharashtra in other hand Tilak's role is main in making Ganesha Chaturthi a public celebration means add this info in Ganesha Chaturthi article's page if not added yet.Am i correct know friend.please explain.am waiting for your reply.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 04:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions:
  1. why cant you write this info under sec called Ganesha in Maharashtra: Because that is not how the article is organized, and not a good way to organize it either. Every individual point does not need a section of its own, and the information is best integrated into related content as is currently done in the Temples section..
  2. in other hand Tilak's role is main in making Ganesha Chaturthi a public celebration means add this info in Ganesha Chaturthi article's page if not added yet. The details do belong in the Ganesh Chaturthi page, and in this article we only mention Tilak's role in a sentence as per summary style.
Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok carry on then.No man is an island.by the by now i m ok with your explanation.Eshwar.omTalk tome 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting revert of IP edits

@Coolgama: you really want to include vague and unsourced statements such as

But another belief says that he was a primary deity in Hinduism from before.

But only oral traditions in some castes tell this.

... as well as grammatical errors and insertion of new statements before existing references that probably do not corroborate them, in a featured article? And you accuse me of vandalism when I revert such additions? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus:, Thanks for putting the things on talk page. I completely agree that we should correct the grammatical errors and should not have unsourced information. But it does not mean that we should remove correct information. For e.g .you removed name "Ganapati/Ganapti". This name is as common as Ganesha all over the world. This is true that "the Vedas, he is praised as Ganpati which means "Lord of the people" or" Lord of the Ganas, men of Lord Shiva."
Already many people in the past have distorted the pages like Ganesha and Ganesh festival by our esteemed editors in the past and I did not get support to put the right perspective. Better try to improve the article in the positive way... Hope you understand my point Coolgama (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha or Ganesh?

Is there a linguistic difference between the two terms? There's a section here, and a separate article, on Ganesh Chaturthi, as well as an article on Eco-friendly Ganesh idols. Both of these articles mention "Lord Ganesh". Milkunderwood (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha is original sanskrit pronunciation. Ganesh is the version, which is preffered in some states of Northern India. The last sanskrit a-letter was recently dropped in hindi and some other languages. (see: Schwa deletion in Indo-Aryan languages) 80.250.56.174 (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishads

@Ravi: Regarding this edit, do you have a reference that Ganesha is mentioned in pre-Gupta Upanishads? The Ganapati Atharvashirsa is dated to the 16th century, and as the references in that article's History section state, the word "Ganapati" in the Rigveda may be a common noun meaning "leader of the multitudes", not the name of a specific deity. utcursch | talk 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ganesha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hala text

My edits (which were anonymous, since I had logged in ) with references to Ganesha's worship in Hala's Gaha Sattasayi were removed citing - "No OR and this work is from 5th century" by Ms Sarah Welch. While the way it was written my have meant OR, by no means the work Gaha Sattasayi is dated to 5th century. Even Wikipedia articles are dating it to 1st century CE. Ramakriya (talk) Ramakriya

@Ramakriya: Please provide an RS with page number which states that the Hala text is from 1st century CE and supports what you claim. Further, how does the source published by Kavyamala in 1933 qualify as WP:RS / WP:HISTRS? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakriya: You may want to read Poems on Life and Love in Ancient India: Hala's Sattasai by Peter Khoroche and Herman Tieken (State Univ of New York Press, 2009) on issues with the author and dating of this text. Neither does this more recent publication confirm what you allege. Please provide a quote if you can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mntzr: Please provide a quote that leads you to believe that "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)" is supported by Basak edited text The Prakrit Gatha Saptasati? The source must interpret / conclude this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sara Welch: I am aware of and read Peter Khoroche's text. It is not any more definitive than many other texts. The whole exercise is based on his assertion that the Gatha Saptashati has elements of Kamasutra. No further details are given. So it is at best a thought of that particular author. If Hala's date is to be debated, it should be done on the the entry about Hala or Gatha Saptashati. Even the Wikipedia page about Gatha Saptashati dates the work to 200 BC to 200 CE. Where did you come up with your "This work of Deccan is from the 5th century"?

Here are couple other references that date Hala and the work to 1st/2nd CE - Much earlier than the arbitrary 5th century date you mentioned.

1) Grow Long Blessed Night Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19051273301. Page 13. Quote "However, it is traditionally and generally believed that these verses were collected by one man, Hala, a king of the Satavahana dynasty who wuled from 20 to 24 CE". End quote.

2) The Absent Traveler, Ravi Dayal Press ISBN -0-86311-256-3. In the Translator's note: Quote "The Gatha Saptashati, one of the earliest anthologies of Indian poetry to have survived, was compiled by a Satavahana king, perhaps Hala, around the second century AD. It if fair to assume , however, that some of it's verses go back to an even earlier period" End quote. Ramakriya (talk)ramakriya

@Ramakriya: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. You misunderstood and probably missed the discussion in Khoroche and Tieken about problems dating this text, and the likely date range. Why do you believe that 'Ravi Dayal Press" is a reputed publisher with a peer review process to be WP:RS? The Selby source published by Oxford Univ Press is RS, but what you quote merely states what the traditional/general belief is. Don't ignore the sentences before that quote and the "however" part. On this being possibly a 5th century text, see fourth para in this. Most importantly, none of these sources are concluding that Ganesha was worshipped in the 1st century. Where does the source such as Selby state so? Please provide a quote from a RS about "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sara Welch: You must understand none of these translators were writing about Ganesha worship specifically. The verse in question does talk about Ganesha idol being worshipped. And I have read the however part and everything around it in the text you mention. There are even some authors who have claimed a 10th CE. By the way why do you assume Ravi Dayal Press is not reputed? (I am not a great fan of that specific translation, but that does not matter) - I am just pointing your preconceived notions.
Verse 4.72 of Sattasayi reads:
"I bow down now before the same idol of Ganapati, which was placed ... " etc - Translation by R G Basak
This is more than an indication of Ganapati idols being worshipped. As far as the date, I have shown Peter Koroche gives no better reasoning for his date than the traditional dates. Ramakriya (talk)ramakriya
@Ms Sara Welch: And how do you come to conclusion that I "misunderstood and probably missed the discussion in Khoroche and Tieken about problems dating this text"? Please stop assuming things. Not necessary. You may have edited more articles on Wikipedia, and may be a moderator of some sort (I can not undo your edits automatically, and have to manually edit every time) -but that does not mean you can make whatever claims about others' reading or comprehension skills. Thank you. Ramakriya (talk)ramakriya
Rig Veda (c. 1500 and 1200 BC ) begins with invocation of Lord Ganesha. [14] Prodigyhk (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read Gobhila Grihya Sutra of the Sama Veda. Also confirms Ganesha worship at least from first century CE. http://www.hinduonline.co/vedicreserve/kalpa/grihya/gobhila_grihya_sutram.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mntzr (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three of you: Welcome to wikipedia and this article. Please read WP:OR guideline and stop inserting original research. The scholarly source must interpret the primary source and state the conclusion, not you. Vedic texts, shastras, sutras, gathas etc manuscripts that have survived are not ancient originals; rather, as old Palm-leaf manuscripts and similar versions decayed, they were copied again. The scribes added, changed things, deleted poems and added new ones as Khoroche and Tieken source published by State University of New York Press states in the case of Gaha Sattasai. The manuscripts of these texts exist in several versions, again something Khoroche and Tieken source explains for Gaha Sattasai on pages 1, 8-10. The headers and colophons in the different manuscripts also vary. Unless a source states that Gaha Sattasai poem with Ganapati is part of the critical edition and can be dated to the 1st century, we can't use wikipedia voice to allege it is. We can't look at an on-line version of some text on hinduonline.com etc and assume it must be the original version! Scholarship must do so. You must provide a source that concludes, "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)" or something similar. This pushing the Ganesha date to an earlier period in the lead based on OR and interpreting a primary text, despite the summary from secondary and tertiary sources in the main article is also problematic. Unfortunately, your use of questionable websites and non-RS etc above to do so comes across as OR and POV-pushing. We need to follow WP:LEAD and use quality, non-eccentric sources given this is a GA article. @Vanamonde93:, @Utcursch:, @Kautilya3: would one of you please clarify our policy on this, particularly the interpretation of primary texts and OR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakriya: Please see WP:RS guidelines on what sort of publishing houses and peer review process are considered reliable in wikipedia. You cite a Ravi Dayal Publisher publication, but have not provided any evidence that this outfit has a peer review process. I checked, and I am unable to confirm. If you provide a University-related press or other reputable publishers, I will accept such an alternate source. Please quit this "pointing your preconceived notions" lectures as it is not constructive. I have already provided two sources that place the Gaha Sattasai in 5th and 3rd to 7th century. Khoroche and Tieken mention dating problems with specific poems, and poems were replaced / inserted into the text later. Further, nothing in the text is concluding that "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)". That is your original research. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramakriya: Gaha Sattasai shows clear signs of Gupta period interpolations. See D. C. Sircar's Ancient Malwa And The Vikramaditya Tradition (1969), p. 114. Or look at the reference you have cited: Grow Long, Blessed Night (p. 82) mentions the accretions made to the core text of Gaha Sattasai in as late as the 5th century. A small part of the text may have been composed by Hāla, but it was definitely expanded during the Gupta period.
So, if a reference states that Ganesha is mentioned in Gaha Sattasai, that cannot be considered as a proof that Ganesha was worshipped during Hāla's lifetime. The portion mentioning Ganesha may be a Gupta-era interpolation. You need to find a source that explicitly supports the assertion that "Ganesha's mention in Gaha Sattasai proves that Ganesha was worshipped in the 1st century CE.
@Prodigyhk and @Mntzr: Colombotelegraph.com and hinduonline.co are not acceptable sources for such claims either. Have a look at WP:RS. scutcheon | talk 23:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
scutcheon the article given to guide to Ms Sarah Welch and any other regular editor for this page. If agree with that information, we can find better quality citations. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: This is a featured article of wikipedia. Ramakriya/etc: please no more edit warring, as our content guidelines for FA-quality articles are more stringent than GA-quality. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To all involved editors: (1) Wikipedia relies on scholarly sources as far as possible. Newspapers are only used for current events where no scholarly sources may be available. Newspapers should never be used to override scholarly sources. (2) WP:PRIMARY sources such as historical texts, religious texts etc., cannot be interpreted by us. They have to be interpreted by WP:SECONDARY sources (again scholarly sources taking priority), and we can only summarise what the SECONDARY sources say. Interpreting PRIMARY sources directly constitutes original research. Enjoy editing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sara Welch: You make this statement - "Unfortunately, your use of questionable websites and non-RS etc above to do so comes across as OR and POV-pushing" - But your references, mostly from a single source, not considering any other POVs is not POV-pushing?
I also saw your recent flood of updates on the Gaha Sattasayi page. A majority (10/16) of the references go back to a single source of Peter and Herman, and this particular translation has the dubious distinction of not having a single Samskrta or Prakrta or Indian language edition of Gaha Sattasayi in it's bibliography. So much for providing a NPOV and considering other scholarly opinions. You don't have to reiterate Ram Dayal is not reviewed and Kavyamala is not peer reviewed etc. I have heard it all.
All other editors on the page: Thanks, and I won't worry about editing any article on Wikipedia knowing the type of moderation here, which makes Wiki neither free or open. I needed to make this final comment before I exited off this thread 192.55.54.39 (talk)ramakriya
Ramakriya: No, it is not a single source at all, but multiple scholarly sources provided by not just me! You misrepresent or misread or misunderstand, just wrong either way. You have failed to provide a reliable source for alternate POVs despite our repeated requests. Hindu POV pushing or anti-Hindu POV pushing websites, and other unreliable / questionable sources with no peer review, are not acceptable on wikipedia. We need to stick to quality scholarship as and when they become available. Bye, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book cited in this edit, doesn't seem to be by someone whose area of expertise is history or religion, not to mention that the citation is incomplete. utcursch | talk 02:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha

I have heard it said that Ganesh does have 108 names in Hinduism. This could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: see Ganesha Sahasranama (already discussed in the article). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [15]
  2. ^ [16]
  3. ^ [17]
  4. ^ [18]
  5. ^ [19]
  6. ^ [20]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ganesha/Archive_6&oldid=1201453102"