Wikipedia:Peer review/Ganesha/archive1

Ganesha[edit]

This page has been extensively re-written to make to more encyclopedic in tone and to provide references. Any input would be helpful, but in particular it would be interesting to know if the article currently covers all of the issues that people normally think of in connection with Ganesha, and if the article seems readable and interesting to non-Hindus. Buddhipriya 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnyw[edit]

As a non-Hindu, and reasonably uneducated in that aspect, I stumbled over the following bits in the article, I hope it helps:

lead paragraph: "divali puja" is unexplained Done English terms are now used, with puja as a link to the article on that topic
the stories about his creation are only mentioned in the beginning, they could be elaborated on, (at least I wanted to look them up after reading these short hints at several different stories.) Done A prominent link to the article for stories about Ganesha now appears at the top of the page.
what stories revolve around him? what are the most well-known legends revolving around Ganesha, in particular relating him to other Hindu gods.. Done A prominent link to the article for stories about Ganesha now appears at the top of the page.
this leads to: since I know so little about Hindu gods, I try to orientate myself on the ones I know a little, like Shiva or Vishnu. Maybe a tiny subsection following the lead summarizing of how gods play a role in Hindu belief and his standing in this belief system could help.

That's all, I hope this helps..Good luck and keep up the good work! --Johnnyw talk 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions. The issue of stories is that we have another page for them, because article length was becoming a problem. Perhaps making a link to that more visible in the lead and some reorganization will help. I added a link to the page for the various myths in a more prominent way, which may address your second and third points. Buddhipriya 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sd31415[edit]

This article is nicely referenced and covers many aspects of Ganesha — it definitely can become featured. Several comments:

Done For all sections: Try to reduce the number of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
Introduction: Great first image.
Done Introduction: Sanskrit işţadevatā → Sanskrit: işţadevatā
Done Introduction: Possibly merge He is called by many other names, including Ganapati. The Hindu title of respect 'Shri' (Sanskrit:श्री; śrī, also spelled Sri or Shree) is often added before his name. into the first paragraph.
Done Etymology and other names: Hindi Ganesh → Hindi: Ganesh and link to the article Hindi.
Done Etymology and other names: Vignesha ("Lord of Obstacles") → Vignesha, meaning "Lord of Obstacles",
Done Iconography: '''Common attributes''' → === Common attributes ===
Done Common attributes: Bolding isn't needed, in my opinion.
Done Worship and Festivals: Worship and Festivals → Worship and festivals
Done Worship and Festivals '''Ganesh Chaturthi''' → === Ganesh Chaturthi ===
Done Association with Aum: Courtright → Paul Courtright
Done Association with first chakra: A short description of the first chakra?
Done Married or celibate?: Married or celibate? → Consorts
Done Sections: You could organize his associations like this:

== Associations ==

=== Aum ===

Text

=== First chakra ===

Text

Done Married or celibate?: Add spaces after Sanskrit. For example, Sanskrit:उच्छिष्टगणपति → Sanskrit: उच्छिष्टगणपति .
Done Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi as "wives": Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi as "wives" → Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi
Done Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi as "wives": In the Matsya Purana Gaṇesha is identified as the "owner" of riddhi (prosperity) and buddhi. → In the Matsya Purana Gaṇesha is identified as the "owner" of Riddhi (prosperity) and Buddhi (wisdom).
Done Ganesha's rise to prominence: Ganesha's rise to prominence → Rise to prominence
Done References: Try using {{Reflist|2}}.
Done Further reading: The sentence There are many books about Ganesha. may not be necessary.

Great work! Hope my suggestions help. Happy editing, [sd] 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this helpful review. I have implemented all of your suggestions, so please take another look and feel free to give additional ideas. Regarding the first chakra, we have tried to keep details at a minimum as that particular topic seems to be a magnet for unrelated content. Buddhipriya 01:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notes have to be formatted for the article. For example: Author Name, Book Title, and p. # → A. Name, Book Title, # (following the example of El Greco). Any note coming from a printed source should have a page number (for example, #2 and #4 does not). Anyone wanting to find more information about the cited source would go to References section and look for the source using the name and title of the book (right now, #7 Flood, Gavin. op. cit. p. 215. is cited but the author isn't found in the References section). Hope this helps! Happy editing, [sd] 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done The reference to Flood is now in the References list. Thanks for continuing to educate me on formats! Buddhipriya 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[edit]

Thank you for considering my suggestions--Redtigerxyz 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much importance is given to Ganesha's Consorts topic and can be shortened(or seperated altogether). a brief intro to Ganesh's consorts can be given and a link to the seperated section could be provided.

A move of the section on consorts is in progress but may take another day to complete in order to be sure that all references move correctly. The consorts sections will be replaced by a section on Family. The original consorts section now resides at Consorts of Ganesha but not all of the original material has been removed from the primary article pending some further summarization of key ideas. Buddhipriya 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A Section on family was a good idea. i think, consorts section in ganesha can be curtailed. a seperate mention of his sons and supposed daughter should be made.--Redtigerxyz 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Sd31415 is still working on the copyedit which may shorten the section further, but the creation of the article for Consorts of Ganesha is completed and there has been a condensation of the ideas on the main Ganesha page.

a brief introduction can written about all topics in 'see also' with link to the articles. as in Hinduism article for Brahman, Atman, Ishvara etc.

In looking into this suggestion I found that WP:LAYOUT says that See Also "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article", which is a suggestion that I find unhelpful. This format guideline seems unhelpful to me because in a long article like Hinduism or Ganesha it is a service to the reader to have a quick summary of internal links at the bottom. I am going to raise this question on the talk page for WP:LAYOUT to try to get more input. Currently in the See also for Ganesha we provide short summaries of what each link covers, which I think is good. Buddhipriya 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

a section about Ganesha's role in religious texts like vedas etc. with links to Ganapati Atharvashirsa, Ganesha Purana, Sritattvanidhi etc.

Ganesha is not a Vedic god, as is noted in the section on "Rise to prominence". The lead currently has the sentence: "Their principal scriptures are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, all of which identify Ganesha as the Supreme embodiment of Brahman." Perhaps we can adjust the language in the history section to explain the timing of his arrival on the scene further. Buddhipriya 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

but he appears in Rig Veda( may be later added). The rise to promience section know takes care of this suggestion.--Redtigerxyz 14:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Rig Vedic references, I suggest that you take that issue to the talk page for the article so the references you believe to be there can be examined. All of the academic sources are in agreement that the figure of Ganesha as we know him today does not appear in the Rig Veda. It is true that this claim is often made, which we address in the section on Vedic and Epic periods. The time periods for these sources are important, as the Rig Veda predates the first known appearances of Ganesha, as the article describes. It is also true that some people often claim that the use of certain phrases referring to "leader of the group" that appear in the Rig Veda are references to Ganesha, but these claims are rejected by academics as the article explains. Buddhipriya 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

a section about Ganesha's temples as sub-section to worship of ganesha with link to ashtavinayak

Currently there is a link to the aṣṭavināyaka temples from the Etymology section which mentions the name Vinayaka: "This name is reflected in the naming of the famous eight Ganesha (aṣṭavināyaka) temples in Maharashtra." I am not sure whether to move the sentence away from the discussion about the name Vinayaka in the Etymology section. There is another possible tie-in related to this name in the Rise to prominence section as he acquired the name due to his prior role with the Vinayakas. Do other editors have opinions on what to do with this suggestion? Buddhipriya 06:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

also the main story of ganesh's birth can be included in the main article.

There is no "main story" of Ganeshas's birth, so it is difficult to know which one might be used. Currently the article says "While he is popularly considered to be the eldest son of Shiva and Parvati, in Puranic myths there are several different versions of his birth. In some stories he was created by Shiva alone, by Parvati alone, by Shiva and Parvati together, or in a mysterious manner that is discovered by Shiva and Parvati." There are six footnotes on those two sentences due to the complexity of the variations. That is actually an oversimplification, because in each of his various incarnations there is some variation in the birth stories, and Ganapatya consider Ganesha to be svambhu (self-created). Buddhipriya 18:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'Ganesha and his mouse' section deleted from the article, should be reincluded with its statements verified.

I am not sure what section you mean, as the only sentence in the article that mentions the mouse is "He is often shown riding on, or attended by, a mouse." That is referenced (another reference can be added if needed), and a picture showing him riding the mouse is on the page. Someone moved the picture away from the sentence, which I will now move back to illustrate this very well-known attribute. Buddhipriya 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done I did a bit of reorganization and added more citations to create an actual section for the mouse. Take a look and feel free to make additional suggestions. Buddhipriya 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

i was refering to this section.

'According to a Purana story, the Ganesh rat was actually the Gandharva or celestial musician called Krauncha. One day, at the Indra's Court, Krauncha insulted the Sage Vamadeva by absent-mindedly walking over the feet of rishi (aother version says, by absent-mindedly kicking the rishi) who cursed Kraucha transforming him into a big rat.However, after the sage had calmed down, he promised Krauncha that one day, the Devas themselves would bow down before him. This rat went in the ashram (hermitage) of the Sage Parashara and caused a lot of damages. The Rishi invoked Ganesha to safeguard the ashram. Ganesh appeared ,trapped the rat with his lasso and made him his Vahana (mount).

According to one interpretation, Ganesha's divine vehicle, the mouse or mooshikam represents wisdom, talent and intelligence. It symbolizes minute investigation of a cryptic subject. A mouse leads a secret life below the ground. Thus it is also a symbol of ignorance that is dominant in darkness and fears light and knowledge. As the vehicle of Ganesha, a mouse teaches us to remain always on alert and illuminate our inner-self with the light of knowledge.

Both Ganesha and the Mooshak love modaka, a sweet dish which is traditionally offered to them both during worship ceremonies. The Mooshak is usually depicted as very small in relation to Ganesha, in contrast to the depictions of vehicles of other deities. However, it was once traditional in Maharashtrian art to depict Mooshak as a very large mouse, and for Ganesha to be mounted on him like a horse.

Yet another interpretation says that the mouse (Mushika or Akhu) represents the ego, the mind with all of its desires, and the pride of the individual. Ganesha, riding atop the mouse, becomes the master (and not the slave) of these tendencies, indicating the power that the intellect and the discriminative faculties have over the mind. Moreover, the mouse (extremely voracious by nature) is often depicted next to a plate of sweets with his eyes turned toward Ganesha while he tightly holds on to a morsel of food between his paws, as if expecting an order from Ganesha. This represents the mind which has been completely subordinated to the superior faculty of the intellect, the mind under strict supervision, which fixes Ganesha and does not approach the food unless it has permission.' --Redtigerxyz 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to move discussion about what should be said about the mouse to the talk page for the article. The above material has no sources, so building additions to the mouse section is certainly possible but should be done by locating additional solid citations. The above material is typical of devotional materials that often speculate on meanings of things but there are multiple possible interpretations. Buddhipriya 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the most common names of ganesha with meaning like ganapati, ekdanta, vakratunda etc. as in Shiva article.

This is an organizational issues, as the names that are descriptive epithets such as Ekadanta are currently connected to the sections which explain those characteristics. For example, on Ekadanta, see the sentences in Attributes: "He has a single tusk, the other being broken off. The earliest Sanskrit name that we know of that was used to refer to Ganesha is Ekadanta (One Tusk), referring to this distinctive attribute. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta according to the Mudgala Purana." Perhaps the best place for names would be under the Ganesha Sahasranama, which is currently linked under the section for Etymology and other names. Some of the most well-known names also show up as specific incarnations, which can be found under the links to the Mudgala Purana and Ganesha Purana. [User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 18:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions. I will review each of them in more detail in the coming week. Buddhipriya 16:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Abecedare[edit]

I think this article is in very good shape and has the likelihood of becoming one of the rare Hinduism FA articles. Below are some points that I think will possibly be raised during the FA process, so it will be good to address them before.

The lead of the article should present a short summary of the main points for the reader, i.e. rather than going into the details of any one point, it should present a preview of the remaining sections. Currently the lead is spending a lot of word-space in establishing that he is "worshipped at the start of ceremonies etc" and that "he is the lord of obstacles". Much of this content IMO be moved to the Worship and Festivals section.
Since the article is on Ganesha and not on "Ganesha in Hinduism", it should at least contain a short summary of the Ganesha outside Hinduism.
Similarly, since Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha is considered important enough to merit an article on its own, the topic should at least be mentioned in the Ganesha article. Note that the anecdotes themselves need not be repeated, but a couple of sentences can be added (possibly in "Family and Consorts" section ) informing the reader that (1) there a number of anecdotes relating to Ganesha's birth, consorts and tusk and (2) where these anecdotes arise from (epics, puranas, later works, ...?)
This is not related directly to the Ganesha article itself, but since the same editors are involved in the "Mythology", "Consorts" and "outside Hinduism" articles, I'd like to point out that the {{Main}} template should be used in the Ganesha article to point out that those sub-articles are the main articles on the sub-topic, and not the other way round! Also, it would be good to add a lead section to Ganesha outside Hinduism and Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha pages.
It will be useful to have the article "professionally" proofread by, say, someone at the League of Copyeditors.

Looking forward to seeing this article on FAC! I request that any responses to my comments be posted below, rather than interleaved with the message itself. I have numbered my points, so that they can be easily referenced. Abecedare 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued help on this article, you have been one of the editors who has improved the article a great deal already. I think all of your suggestions are great. Why don't you just begin making the changes yourself if you like. I am not sure I know Wikipedia templates well enough to completely understand how the Main template, etc., should be used, so if you could just fix those things first it would be great. I can take care of the other points over the next few days. A problem with the articles on Mythology and Outside Hinduism articles is that they are poorly sourced and contain some unreliable material. I would be cautious about importing anything from them. It would not be hard to get some well-sourced summary statements from WP:RS for those things rather than draw from the Wikipedia articles. Buddhipriya 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: Done At least it has been shortened by moving content to sections in the article body. Is it too short now? I do not have a good feel for what summary style looks like, and tend to consolidate material that is repeated in a lead. Buddhipriya 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the India article provides a good example. Note how its lead summarizes points from the History, Geography and Demographics etc sections. It is a good featured article, and some of its sub-articles are FA themselves. I will be busy the next couple of days, but will try to be of help soon after. Abecedare 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the lead is too short now — the lead section should be around three paragraphs (more). Happy editing, [sd] 23:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2: Done I wrote a section on the expansion and added the theme of his connection with the trading community, which explains why he got around so much. :) The fact that he was the god of traders, who travelled for business, explains the question which someone asked a while back about why Ganesha is so popular outside of India. Anita Thapan's book goes on and on about the trading connections, which are very extensive. The other two key ideas for his transfer were Buddhist connections and direct Hindu migration. Different countries were influenced to a greater or lesser extent by these three forces. I thought it was best to build the article from scratch as the existing article on this topic has uneven referencing. The books I cited in the new section contain a great deal of additional detail that could be put into Ganesha outside Hinduism but I do not work much on that article, as it has been difficult to get editorial agreement on how to approach referencing. Buddhipriya 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3: The article on Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha was created largely in order to cast out unreferenced tidbits from the Ganesha article because it was too long. That article is still poorly sourced and badly organized, but eventually it should be cleaned up. In the section for the Puranic period in the Ganesha article we make the point that virtually all of the stories that are in popular play about Ganesha date from Puranic times, and there is a link to the mythology article there. I am not sure quite what to do with possible reorganization of the existing content to make the point which you raise in your suggestion. It is a good suggestion but I am scratching my head on how best to deal with it. The strategic issue that I feel is important is to show a progression in the historical development of Ganesha, with the mythology not being confused with ethnographic materials. Can you help sort this out? Also note that there is a link to the mytholgical anecdoes at the top of the article. Buddhipriya 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point 4:

Point 5: I have placed a request for proofreading at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading as you suggested. Buddhipriya 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here, Galena will copy-edit Ganesha, "in stages." Buddhipriya 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]