Talk:Sritattvanidhi

message: Thank you for your interest in the article on the Sritattvanidhi.  Can you add any book references for the material you have added?  We are trying to upgrade the quality of references on many of the Hinduism articles, which are often without citations now.  Also, the picture you added has no associated documentation on file explaining where it is from or what the connection is.  Can you help with that?  I would also love to find an ISBN or book supplier for reproduction of the work that may still be available.  It is a classic that needs wider attention. Buddhipriya 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are doing great work, thank you.  Regarding changing statements that are in published sources, if you have a source that gives a different version, as in the case with authorship, rather than change a cited sentence please add an additional reference with the other point of view, or raise the subject on the talk page so we can work together to get both in.  The citation to Martin-Dubost would be considered a  reliable source and thus should not be removed.  Also, I recommend that we continue further dialog about this on the talk page for the article rather than here, to make it easier for other editors to find these remarks.  I will copy this entire thread to there now to preserve some of the good points you have made. Buddhipriya 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy of prior thread on this article, originally on a user talk page 

message: It is common to have conflicts about dates in some of these sources.  When multiple versions of dates can be found, it is best to cite both, with proper references.  The date in the article is properly sourced to Martin-Dubost.  If you can provide a precise page and book reference for "Maharaja died on 28 march 1868" then I will add that alternative dating in.  The 1868 date is probably right, but it is unreferenced, and thus fails the test of WP:RS. 
Buddhipriya 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding date of death 

message: As with the date of death, varying statements of direct authorship can all be stated, giving specific references that meet the test of WP:RS.  Is it correct that this quote is from vol. 1 of the republished editon, or from some other edition?  All that is needed is to clarify the edition and then I will add this view to that given by Martin-Dubost, which specifically states that he funded a project to do it as opposed to writing it all himself.  The English word "authored" may broadly mean "arranged to be written" and it is not surprising that in the introduction full credit would be given to him regardless of whether he had help.  Here is the quote we are working on: 
 2. The first page, the author states thus: May the work sri tattvanidi, which is illustrated and contains secrets of mantras and which is authored by king sri krishna raja, be written without any abstacle. Salutation to Lord ganapati and goddess chamundambika...
Hence we cannot today doubt the authorship and say it was done at his command !
 
Buddhipriya 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding authorship 

message: I have moved the pictures back to the right side because as I work with the text I need to use indentation to set off the quotes.  When the pictures are on the left side the visual arrangement of the indented text is thrown off.  It is important that the text be easy to read, so I recommend that we leave the pictures on the right side. Buddhipriya 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of pictures on page 

message: It is wonderful that you are able to provide your own transcription of the text with your translation.  Please continue doing so.  However in Wikipedia we must follow WP:RS and give references to anything we put here.  There have been some different translations of these verses printed in books about Ganesha, and as we go I will give what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source for each verse.  These quotations will probably be different from what you are giving.  Please watch for how they differ and let's see if we can identify any ways in which your translation spots errors.  Please do not change any of the text as given by other translators.  In Wikipedia it does not matter if what the quote says is right, it just needs to be an accurate statement of what that reliable souce said.  If there are conflicts between reliable sources these can both be quoted.  Providing your own translation may be challenged as WP:OR so we need to figure out how to include the information in a way that uses reliable sources.
See WP:RS#Language for policy on use of the original text.  It is good to include the actual source language as you are doing.  Buddhipriya 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having difficulty keeping track of which translations you are providing, since there is another informal version already there.  As you add your translations would you place note yourself as the source, so I can then work on them as new material more easily?  I will continue to add published translations for comparisons. Buddhipriya 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add your own translations, but please note in the text when you do so the variant versions can be distinguished from one another.  When you just add text it is impossible to tell later where it came from.  There are several variant translations in the published materials, and since they do not agree with one another, some of them must be wrong.  But according to WP:RS we must cite sources, not contributed original research.  Your versions may be helpful in reconciling the other published versions, but add them in a way that keeps your contribution clearly distinguished from other versions. Once yours are in I can go through later and try to reconcile variations. Buddhipriya 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources for the translations

message: I can see that the present article has been carefully worked on to use the older ASCII transliteration methods in an attempt to preserve a correct romanization of the Indic script, which was a good intention.  The standard romanization method used for articles in the Hinduism project is IAST rather than the ASCII methods used to some extent in the article.  I feel that it would be good for the article to standardize the use of IAST for that reason.  An exception is that for words which have common English equivalents such as Ganapati, Shiva, or Vishnu, the common simple English romanization is preferred since this is an English-language Wiki.  When IAST is used as the romanization it should be enclosed within Template:IAST which helps ensure correct rendering on web browsers and helps bots identify pages that contain Indic text.  The IAST tag in use looks like this:  While Indic scripts such as Devanagari do not contain the idea of capitalization, the IAST specifications include capital letters as an accomodation for English readers.  Hence proper names are generally capitalized as that is the custom in English. 
For a summary of the IAST issues as I see them, please check User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage and feel free to add any points there that you think pertain to this issue.  That essay is a collection of threads and links related to romanization of Indic scripts. Buddhipriya 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt IAST is a preferred method for articles on Hinduism. But i have used ASCII method as i have based it on baraha a free transliteration software which also helps other Indian diaspora to easily convert what is posted here to some of the languages listed under baraha  including sanskrit etc. It is also easy for me verify the kannada text as in the paintings. You are free to change if you feel otherwise.
Rajachandra 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ASCII methods certainly have their place, and for some people who use transliteration software of the type you mention it is convenient.  However it is difficult for English readers who are not familiar with it because the system of repetition of letters and internal capitalization violates English norms.  The IAST system presents different problems with legibility related to the extra diacritical marks, but at least the system of capitalization can optionally be used to normalize to English usage for things like proper names.  There are a couple of other sources for the Kannada text in IAST and Devanagari transliteration, so as you continue to provide your transliteration we can compare it with some of the published versions and see if there are any points where they vary.  In doing this it can be normalized to IAST gradually. Buddhipriya 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of IAST 

message: Wikipedia:Guide to layout specifies the use of Notes and References sections and I would like to adjust the article so that the standard methods are used for footnotes.  In the standard system, footnotes go in "Notes" and works cited in footnotes go in "References", which becomes a "list of works cited".  This makes it easier to comply with WP:CITE.  I don't this will be controversial so I will go ahead and make the setup that way, adjusting existing content to the standard format. Buddhipriya 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of standard reference sections 

message: In setting up the standard reference sections I was unclear if there are two books or one book cited in this note.  Can you please check reference data and compare with the standardized templates for books that I have tried to extract from it?  My guesses may be wrong, so please verify.  Here is the original citation:
Annals of the Mysore Royal Family , Part II, Government Branch Press, Mysore, 1922, page:176; mummaDi kRuShNarAja oDeyaru - oMdu cAriTrika adhyana ( Mummadi Krsihnaraja Wodeyar- a Historic Study) by Dr. R.Gopal & Dr. S.Narendra Prasad, published by Directorate of Archeology and Museums, Hospet- Karnataka-India in 2004 @page=104 
^ mummaDi kRuShNarAja oDeyaru - oMdu cAriTrika adhyana by Dr. R.Gopal & Dr. S.Narendra Prasad,@page=92-94 
Here are the two (?) books which may be referred to, using book templates:
* 
* 
Is there an author for the first item?
For this one, is there an author?
Sri Mummadi Krsihnaraja Wodeyar's 'Sritattvanidhi', Volume-1;shakti nidhi @ pages xviii-xxiv: by Oriental research Institute, University of Mysore, 1997 
I have tried to standardize this to the template as follows:
Buddhipriya 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions regarding citations 

message: Another editor has identified a problem with the documentation for the images that have been uploaded, noting that they lack exact source information.  Unless this problem is corrected, the images could be subject to deletion.  The problem should be easy to fix by adding text such as "Scan of page from Sritattvanidhi, originally published in 18??" to each of the image pages.  Note that the issue here is which publication the scans are actually from.  Are they from the orignal copies of the work, which would date to some publication date in 18??, or are they from a reproduction of later date?  The complete citation data for the work from which they were scanned is needed.  Buddhipriya 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sritattvanidhi was never published in the modern sense of the word during the life time of the Author - Maharaja Mummudi Krishna Raja Wadiyar. It is said there were more than one hand bound identical - hand written &  painted - compilation.  How many were there ?  No authoritative information is available. But officially theer are two copies today - one with ORI and one with Sri. Srikanata Datta Narasimha Raja Wadiyar. Even the copy with ORI is  said  have been gifted to them by  a descendant of  the Author from a un-recognized branch. May be it is for this reason ORI itself does not claim any copyright in its publication. What ever i have posted here is a spruced up  and digitally modified from the scanned picture. If you still have any doubts kindly let me know. sorry i was busy and had not logged on to wiki for a long time
Rajachandra 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are just trying to get citation data on file for the images, and I am not questioning them.  But I am still not clear where the images were scanned from.  Were they scanned from the originals directly?  Or from a reproduction of the originals? If from a reproduction of the originals, what is the citation for that reproduction? We need to clarify where the pictures were when they were scanned. Buddhipriya 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with image licensing 

message: In the ASCII romanization, the use of anusvara is preserved (which is good), and direct equivalent in IAST would be, e.g.,  ("his own tusk").  This is OK, and would be the most correct way to represent what is written in the original.  However it is common practice to convert the anusvara to the corresponding nasal of the class to which it is prepended, thus writing (in this case) .  I will leave the anusvara as they are, but does anyone have an opinion as to whether the nasalization conversion should be done here?  I noticed this because I am comparing against a Devanagari version of the verses where the conversion has been done in that printed source. Buddhipriya 07:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard for representation of nasals 

message: Greetings! In the article, it is mentioned that: He has six arms. He is blue in colour. His hands show the rosary, the pomegranate, the paddy ear (shalyagra), the nocturnal lotus, the lute (vîna); his sixth hand sometimes bears a guñja berry, embraces the goddess. The Ucchista Ganapati trunk is placed on the goddess's thigh
However, some sources say that Ucçhishṭa Gaṇapati is red in colour. Of course, Hinduism as a rich and diverse religion might have many conceptions on that. I was just wondering, though, if the red manifestation should be included in the article as well (naturally if that's the case even).
I'd like to emphasize that following is not a reliable source in the academic sense of the word. Moreover, it is just to demonstrate the other conception on this matter:
Matangi and Ganesha are both related to  elephants. The terms - matanga, maatanga and matanga raja – all refer to the elephant.  Matangi had her origin amidst the elephant huntress and she holds a hook (ankusha) that controls an elephant. Ganesha as para-vak the un-manifest word is at muladhara, while Matangi as vaikhari –vak is at visuddhi. The tantric sadhana regards Matangi as the female counterpart of Ucchishta Ganapathi.
The Ucchishta Ganapathi is a tantric form of Ganesha. He is depicted as red in color, naked and intoxicated. In some forms he is shown amorously playing with his consort seated on his left lap (nari-yoni-rasasvada lolupam, Kama mohitam). Like Matangi, the Ucchishta-Ganapati too is associated with unclean things. (http://creative.sulekha.com/dasha-ten-mahavidya-part-four-dhumavati-bagalamukhi-matangi-and-kamala-4-of-4_546569_blog)
So, is Ucchishta Ganapathi just in blue form, or does it appear in red as well? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ucçhishṭa Gaṇapati