Talk:Ganesha/Archive 2

message: Although Ayyappa is seen as the son of Shiva, he has never been equated with Ganesha. Hence I'll be removing the word from the page. Jay 09:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayyappa 

message: In the article, in the second version described in the "Overview" section of how Ganesha got his elephant-head, it says that Parvathi was showing off the child when Shiva's gaze causes it to turn to ashes.  This seems incorrect, unless it is a version I am simply not familiar with.  My recollection of the second version is that Parvathi was showing off her child, when she observes "Shani" looking away from the child.  When Parvathi asks Shani to look at the child, he does, and his sight causes Ganesha's head to break into pieces, which is then restored with the head of an elephant.  Does anyone else remember this version?  -- Wikirao July 5, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
I have also heard a version where the head was severed. There are many different versions of most stories in the Hindu religion only differing slightly. 220.233.11.111 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second version of how Ganesha got his elephant-head 

message: Why not have the Sanskrit: गणेश, or proper transliteration of Gaṇeś(a)? I understand the other languages might have their feelings hurt, but a little etymology doesn't hurt :-) I can only guess for the other epithet/languages (the Online Sanskrit Dictionary has both गणपतिं and गणपती, and my Hindi dictionary has गण-पति - take your pick I guess!), ગણપતિ?, விநாயகர் (act. vināyagar according to Tamil article). ॐ श्री गणेशय नमः ! Khirad 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devanagari? 

message: From what I can see, Ganesha is a very popular Hindu god. Being someone from a Westerner background, I am quite intrigued: what makes him so popular with Hindus? If you have so many gods to choose from, why does one (or more generally a few) get so much attention while many others don't get that much? Surely there must be reasons... Is it something historical? Is it because of the god's particular attributes? This is a question I was wondering while reading this article, and was disappointed that it does not really answer it. Someone who knows the answer to this question should add it to the article.
: He's the remover of obstacles. I dunno about you, but I could use a few obstacles removed. Sounds like a pretty good recipe for popularity to me.
: WillWare 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not the most widely worshipped. Lord Vishnu is, seeing as to how most Hindus are Vaishnava. Armyrifle 00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Ganesha worship is compatible with that of other deities, in many rituals to other deities, Ganesha is honored at the very start to get the ball rolling.  Historically this was done in order to propitiate him so that he would not place any obstacles in the path of the performance of the ritual, such as the priest forgetting lines, a wind blowing out the fire, or whatever.  This was all derived from his early associations as Vighnakarta (Creator of Obstacles).  In more recent times, he still has first place of order in worship and also in public performances of a non-liturgical nature, as the article explains.  Schoolchildren write his name at the top of exam papers, for example, regardless of their denomination.  They may be Vaishnava, but it can't hurt to ask Ganesha for a bit of help on an exam, as he is the Patron of Letters. The statement regarding his popularity currently has one reference on it, but I seem to recall we had more prior to the rewrite that was just done.  I will have to check the edit history to see if any citations were moved.  We can add more to support this point, as I expect it will come up again. Buddhipriya 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Ganesha so popular? 

message: Somewhere I heard or read that when Vyasa and Ganesha sat down to record the Mahabharata, Ganesha didn't have a pen, so he broke off the tip of one tusk to write with. No idea how canonical this explanation would be.
WillWare 06:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate explanation for broken tusk 

message: The following section is unverifiable and I have searched yahoo and www.mlbd.com, Motilal Barnisddas, if such scholar exists. None appeared.
Another variation can be found in the work of the Indian religious scholar, Prof. Pradeep Sarkar. First cited in his paper 'The reflection of ancient India in modern India,' (1999) Sarkar weaves together from various ancient texts an altogether more prosaic sequence of events: frustrated during one of the ascetic Shiva's lengthy pilgrimages to the forest, his wife Parvati took a lover, fell pregnant, and gave birth to a son, Ganesha. When her husband Shiva returned he encountered the boy, who identified himself as Parvati's son. Shiva, immediately understanding the developments which had unfolded during his absence, was enraged, and struck the boy violently, breaking his nose. Remorseful for his misdirected anger, Shiva took the boy to the nearest surgeon, who proceeded to attempt to reconstruct the boy's nose. This could not be done without significant disfigurement. Subsequent religious traditions have attempted to mask this disfigurement with the visage of an elephant, leading to the familiar images of today.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Pradeep+Sarkar++reflection+of+ancient+India+in+modern+India%2C&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&b=1
If the author can cite legitimate verifiable sources, please do and we can add this section.
I am concerned about Wikipedia's lack of credibility. There may be authors, as we know, who merely vandalize; see this article: 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_fake_bio
Raj2004 00:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This article is missing the sanskrit writing --Shell 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit 

message: I've put in devnagri spellings for other names. Could somebody check the spellings? My knowledge of Devnagri is very basic. Additionally could any body add the tamil name?
अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done with Devnagri.. almost 

message: back shortly...--Lacatosias 12:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have to eat... 

message: ==== Article: :it:Ganesha  ====
*Corresponding English-language article: Ganesha
*Worth doing because: Italian article is featured article. English is fairly close to becoming one.
* Originally Requested by: DaGizza Chat 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved this from translation page 

message: *Corresponding English-language article: Ganesha
*Worth doing because: Italian article is featured article. English is fairly close to becoming one.
* Originally Requested by: DaGizza Chat 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Article''': [[:it:Ganesha]]  

message: The text read that Vishnu took on the appearence of a fluatist when he went to get Shiva out of the stomach.  Not being aware of any such word, I rendered it 'flutist', as seemed most likely from context.  Pardon my ignorance if there is an Indian instrument called a 'fluat'; if that's the case, a link or an explanation might be in order, or other people will probably make the same assumption I did.  Candle-ends 18:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct answer: neither. Fluatist was a typo. the correct English word for someone who play's the flute, however, is not flutist but flautist. --Lacatosias 11:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, flautist or flutist are both used. I've always preferred flautist and mistyped it. That should clear things up anyway.--Lacatosias 11:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluatist or flutist? 

message: I have removed this section, for obvious reasons.
Sfacets 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ravi, are you sure Gan/Gana means Republic. With my knowledge of Sanskrit and Hindi, I think it means elephant. Maybe, it some parts of India the meaning has changed. Also too much is written about it. I don't want to sound rude but on a Wikipedia article there is not enough space to write a paragraph on every ethnic group in India's view on Ganeshji. Otherwise, there would "Punjabis believe Ganesh is ..., Tamils think Ganesha is, Rajasthanis, Gujaratis, Bengalis... Do you understand? It is just much information. My best idea to shorten is to create a section at the bottom called "Other views on Ganesh" or besides Ganapati and Ganesh in the Names of Ganesha section, write they mean Lord of the Rupublic in Jat traditions. GizzaChat © 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've organised a litter better now but I'm still confused. At the bottom in the section "Names of Ganesha," it says Ganapati means lord of the Ganas, which are servants of Shivji. What does "The Republic mean? Does it refer to the Republic of India. I don't think Bharat has always been a republic! I created a separate section on how Ganesha's name is derived. I put the references at the bottom of the page. GizzaChat © 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic Section 

message: I'm the one who added the part on the milk miracle of 2006 (I forgot to sign in). This clearly requires more than half a sentence, so any additions are more than welcome. --WikiMarshall 18:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milk Miracle 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you must underatdn that some of this article was translated from the Italian version. The Italian wiki does not provide sources anywhere. In fact, there are only about 5 people who know about the Italaian wikiepdia!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand but for the benefit of WP:V and to comply with the Good Article Criteria, we will need some kind of reference. As I mentioned above, you have at least a week's time. (Most likely more with 3-5 reviewers for 1400+ articles). I would see what type of help the Italian Wikipedians might give. Agne 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually addressing the others who have contributed and might (or might not) be interested in maintaining the GA status. I will leave a note on the talk-page of the Italian version. But don't bet on an answer any time this century. You're better off looking for your own sources.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I left a note on the Italian talk page. The response was "this information can be found in any text that deals with Hindu divinities". I have no such texts. As I wrote above, other editors of this article should find and cite their own sources, if they are concerned about this GA stuff. --Francesco Franco 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No there will be more than just oral tradition to support these facts. There should be commentaries written by Hindu saints/philosophers/gurus (People who are very educated and learned about Hinduism) who mention these statements. Some of the information has been sourced at the moment though of course should be in the future, preferably not from websites. I may do it when I get the time. GizzaChat © 06:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refernces 

message: Is there any authentic source for this: 'Ga' symbolizes Buddhi (intellect) and 'Na' symbolizes Vidnyana (wisdom). appearing in the very first para? – Apnavana 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Authentic source

message: I appreciate all this content on Wikipedia on Hindu Mythology, since it aids in anyone's study of the subject which is still thinly charted territory. The symptom of this is largely uncritical presentation of the matter. It says that one syllable in the name symbolizes this, and a broken tusk symbolizes that, and two companions symbolize yet something else. What is the source for those statements? Oral tradition? I think so. In that respect, these articles actually violate the not-original research principle of Wikipedia. However, I think an exception must be made for this vast topic that could perhaps never be critically worked up were it not for many people contributing on Wikipedia. Alas, many more challenging questions need to be asked and flags need to be put up to call for more critical revisions. Gschadow 22:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No there will be more than just oral tradition to support these facts. There should be commentaries written by Hindu saints/philosophers/gurus (People who are very educated and learned about Hinduism) who mention these statements. Some of the information has been sourced at the moment though of course should be in the future, preferably not from websites. I may do it when I get the time. GizzaChat © 06:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An Exemplary Case of The Problem with Hindu Mythology in Wikipedia

message: I have just uploaded this photograph should anyone wish to use it in the article. Best wishes, ys, GourangaUK 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganesha image 

message: I do not see a standard template for articles within books that are collections of scholarly pieces among the samples at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations
The format I need would normally look something like this in print:
Narain, A. K. "Gaṇeśa: A Protohistory of the Idea and the Icon", in: Brown, Robert L. (editor), Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God (State University of New York Press: Albany 1991), pp. 21-2. .
Can someone help me make this citation correctly in Wiki via a template?
Also, I am unsure how to handle "op. cit." citation formats in Wiki.  Normally in a paper I would cite a reference in full the first time it is used, and then use "op. cit." with a page number for following footnotes that reference the same source.  But in Wiki since anyone can move or delete anything, if I do not provide full citations for each ref instance, the detail may disappear or be altered (vandalized?) at will, making the rest of the refs wrong in unpredictble ways.  What is the best way to deal with recurring citations?
It looks like most of the references now in the article are to online resources rather than books, so perhaps that is why this issue has not come up. 
Buddhipriya 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format for individual articles appearing in book compilations 

message: Someone added a disambiguation page for Ganesha, which is probably OK, but now all the links to the Ganesha page appear to be broken, as they point to the disambiguation page.  This action was done by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Use_the_force  What to do?  I did not know that Ganesha was the name of a recreational drug, so I guess it shows I am out of touch. Buddhipriya 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of Ganesha page has broken all links to it? 

message: When editing the page now Wiki automatically tells me that "This page is 53 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."  I agree with Wiki's opinion.  The page size has been increasing as I have been adding citations and detail, particularly to the section on Ganeshji's marital status.  I am perhaps a bit more than half way done on the expansion of that section.  I have not yet added detailed references on his celibacy, the Lakshmi/Sarasvati connections, the Ashtasiddi connections, and some other tidbits.  I plan to continue that expansion over the next week or so.  Once done, the section on marital status should have been expanded to what may be full-article status.  I recommend that it be extracted from the page and made a subpage, with a link to it from the Ganesha page.  Do others agree this would be a good move?  As we begin to add full citations to other sections, they too may develop in a similar manner, so we need to plan ahead. Buddhipriya 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move some content to a subpage 

message: The subject of Ganesha's history is another distinct topic that may be a good one to expand.  There has been a lot written on this subject.  Most of the books that I have been citing so far include references that relate to the development of the deity.  In approaching the subject there are some disagreements in the academic literature.  It is possible that the section would be long if it were done well.  I would like to put out a call now for book citations that any of you feel are of particular importance on that specific subject so we can do some review of the materials together.  For protohistory of the pre-Ganesha figures that eventually morphed into the figure as we know him one of the best single books that I have found is Anita Thapan's "Understanding Ganapati: Insights into the Dynamics of a Cult" (Manohar Publishers: 1997) .  I like Thapan because she pulls together material that is scattered in various places.  Protohistory is covered in chapters 2 and 3 on pp. 42-100.  Even summarizing that material (58 pages, dense with citations) may make a good article.  What do others rely on as sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buddhipriya (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protohistory of Ganesha 

message: I have started this new article and would like you help me expand it. I intend to the role of Ganapati in Buddhism , Jainism n also his presence in other countries like Sri lanka, Thailand , Japan etc. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ganesha beyond Hinduism]] 

message: I am moving this addition here so it can be cleaned up prior to reinsertion.
The Mooshak is also the emblem of Ganesha. Ganesha is invoked as "Mooshak-dhwaja" (one who has Mooshak-the mouse on his flag-dhwaja) in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa - Verse 9.
As the article on the Ganapati Atharvashirsa explains, there is no generally-accepted numbering system for verses.  Please cite which edition you are referencing so the citation can be verified.  I will look in the three different editions that I have access to later. Buddhipriya 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pproblem with versions of the Atharvashirsa 

message: There is no reliable source cited for this addition so I have moved it here pending further identification.  There are several different versions of how the mouse came to be associated with Ganesha.  The Puranic literature is a vast field where anything and everything can and has been said about Ganesha.  Finding a story in one place does not mean that is the only story.  We must be more critical and cite sources.
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).
In general, many of the other stories in the article are equally unreliable and contain much misinformation.  It will take time to clean it all up.  Personally I would move the entire section on Puranic stories to the talk page and then gradually re-add improved versions of the material as we can focus on each one.  Working with the defective sources we have now on the article is very time-consuming.
I am moving these paragraphs about the mouse here, as they are unreferenced speculation on what the mouse means.  There is a great deal of this sort of stuff in the devotional literature about Ganesha.  Is is fine to believe these things, but opinions vary and for any statement made here a completely different view could also be cited.  The article reads like a devotional tract in many places rather than an encyclopedia article that must cite reliable sources.
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. 
Buddhipriya 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please cite sources 

message: As we overhaul this article we have made progress in getting the wonderful Puranic fairy tales into one clearly-defined area.  Most of the stories given have no references, and represent variants of myths which often have many more variants in addition to those that are cited, sometimes incorrectly.  I have added a general introduction that tries to focus the issue on the myths that are most prevalent.  In order to reduce article length I think that some of the unreferenced material that is there now should be deleted entirely or significantly shortened, leaving only material that can be well-referenced and which is important to the main ideas.  Many of these wonderful stories can be kept, but with shorter versions that are well-referenced.  Overall article length needs to be kept in mind, as I notice that the editing interface has been giving warning messages to that effect. Buddhipriya 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem may be that some of these stories may not be Puranic but rather developed from oral tradition. If that is the case, there may be no other alternative than to remove them at a later stage unfortunately. The redundant detail should go whether or not they are referenced. Once refs are found for most, if not all of the legends, then a Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha can be created where more detail is allowed. GizzaChat © 07:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great suggestion on creating a Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha article.  I moved the unsourced material there for further work.  That helps with article length quite a bit. It is easy to provide the Puranic citations for almost all of what is in there now, as most of it does have a Puranic source, but the problem is that there are many, many more Puranic variants in addition to the vast number of devotee stories that are of recent origin.  Buddhipriya 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length and dealing with the Puranic stories 

message: The article should clarify the difference between the history of Ganesha's popularity among his followers and the history of Ganesha's life (ie. biography) and significant incidents that have happened to Him according to the various mythological stories. In this sense, History is a bit vague so I suggest a renaming of the section heading. Btw Buddhipriya, you have done some astounding work so far and I hope in the near future the article can aspire to become a Feature article. GizzaChat © 07:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good suggestion on making sure that the sections are distinct.  I renamed the history section to "Academic study of Ganesha's history" (which may be too long) to try to contrast more clearly with "Mythlogical anecdotes."  The academic history section is now fairly complete, and I have replaced all of the unsourced or weakly sourced speculations with solid references in that section.  The mythological section is the next to clean up, but now it on a separate article and so will be easier to focus on. Buddhipriya 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can be also named "Origin Theories" as in Shiva article.--Redtigerxyz 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History of Ganesha" 

message: This is an interesting summary of the Ganesh Mythos. I have read that I shouldn't add it to the external links section - I hope this is the right place to put it. 
:Thanks for raising it here.  The link is not noteworthy, as it does not cite any reliable sources.  There are many, many such non-authoritative sites.  Please check WP:EL for general guidelines on external links. Buddhipriya 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check out this link 

message: Challenging this statement - "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 Brahma Vaitra Purana and Shiv Maha Purana, Ganesha is the second born son of Shiva. In Shiva Purana, there is a mention Skanda fighting with the child Ganesha who was guarding Parvati's quarters. 
In Skanda Purana, after Sati's death, Skanda is born to kill Tarakasur ( who had destinied to killed by shiva' son and Shiva had no wife or child at that time. Parvati gets married to shiva but Ganesha been born is not mentioned.) thus, Skanda is Shiva' first son.
The Sanskrit epic Kumarsambhava(regarding the birth of Kartikeya) by Kalidas says that Kartikeya(Kumar) is Shiva's first son.
In Maharashtra too, it is 'popularly' believed that Ganesha is the youngest son of shiva.
But in Padma Purana, Ganesha is mentioned before Kartikeya implying Ganesha is elder.
i feel, the both opinions should be highlighted in the article.
--Redtigerxyz 11:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying the different stories. Do you know what the major Ganapatya, Shaiva and for that matter all Hindu sects believe Ganesha? I believe it will differ between the sects and that can also mentioned. Hopefully Buddhipriya or Sd will add your additional information about Ganesha's birth/age. GizzaChat © 11:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as the article says, there are many variants, and sometimes Ganesha is said to be the younger brother.  One of his names in the Ganesha Sahasranama is Kumaraguru, which is interpreted to mean "Skanda's elder brother".  We can certainly add more references to support both stories, but among Ganapatya I would say that it is more common to think of him as the elder.  I do not have time to look up specific references right now, but if this is a concern we can get more in the next week.  Buddhipriya 05:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can 'Kumaraguru' be intrepeted as "Skanda's elder bro"? it only means the Guru(teacher) of Skanda. A Guru is "elder" in knowledge not necessarily in age. The story of circling the globe proves Ganesha is wiser. As a reward, Ganesha is given the fruit of knowledge(in other versions, the hand of riddhi-siddhi).Thus he can(may) be considered elder in knowledge. The other version also supports the claim the Ganesha is younger - when Ganesha is married first, Kartikeya(Skanda) was angry with his parents and left Kailash for Krauncha mountain as he felt that Shiva-Parvati were unjust to marry Ganesha first although he was their elder son (as per tradition, the first-born is married first).To your ref to Ganpatya, like other sects like Shaiva, Vishanava, Shakti-upasaka who say their resp deity is greatest, same implys to Ganpatya. Also, i object to the word  "sometimes" in 'sometimes Ganesha is said to be the younger brother'.i found only one ref for Ganesha to be elder while many others contradicting it. --Redtigerxyz 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a WP:RS and we should avoid citing Wikipedia.  It takes a bit more time to look things up in books, but they are a higher quality of source.  Currently the article is very well-referenced and we need to keep a high level of sources, not degraded them to Wikipedia articles or self-published web sites.  My opinion is that anything that cannot be well-sourced should be removed, with addition of well-cited material later. Buddhipriya 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eldest or younger son of shiva. 

message: Is Ganesha considered to be the "God of Obstacles" or the "God of Removal of Obstacles"? Instead of seeing it changed back and forth on the article, I'd like to start a discussion here, on the talk page. If he is the "God of Removal of Obstacles", the sentence "He can place obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked, and can remove blockages just as easily" wouldn't make much sense. Happy editing, [sd] 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganesha is 'Vigneshwara', lord of obstacles. "He can place obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked(evil) (or to test his devotees), and can remove blockages(created by evil) just as easily". He is worshipped as 'Vigna-harta', Remover of obstacles and not as 'Vigna-karta', creator of obstacles.
"God of Obstacles", i personally feel, has a neagative overtone. the title mostly indicates Ganesha' ability to create obstacles and not to remove them--Redtigerxyz 12:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is very definitely "God of Obstaces" (Vignesvara).  His ability to create obstacles is the reason why he is worshipped prior to any ritual, to placate him so he will not create a problem during the performance of an action.  Changing it to read "Remover of obstacles" does not convey his function.  His most common attributes for two paired hands are a noose (a snare, to impede) and a goad (to stimulate).  Both functions are the core of his function in the system of devas.  The sentence "He can place obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked, and can remove blockages just as easily" is correct and the short title should reflect names like Vighnesa (Obstacle-Lord), Vighnanayaka (Obstacle-Leader), Vighnaraja (Obstacle-King), all of which are based this.  Vighna = obstacle, impediment.  I have added three quotations from academic sources that explain this issue in more detail since it seems to be a point of interest.  Ganesha is both vighnakartā and vighnahartā depending on need, as this quote from Yuvraj Krishhan specifically explains: "Gaṇeśa has a dual nature; as Vināyaka, as a grāmadevatā, he is vighnakartā, and as Gaṇeśa he is vighnahartā, a paurāṇic devatā." Krishan, p. viii.   Buddhipriya 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God of (removal of) obstacles 

message: I asked for an automated peer review of the article, and Shahab was kind enough to run it for us.  Here is the output the bot produced.  I suspect that some of the comments related to language may have been triggered by Sanskrit terms that the bot was not familiar with. :) Buddhipriya 19:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review 

message: Generally speaking every sentence does not need a citation to back it up. But instances when they are almost mandatory are when statistics or quotes are used. One such unsourced quote is in this section It is widely believed that "Wherever there is Ganesha, there is Success and Prosperity" and "Wherever there is Success and Prosperity there is Ganesha".
To be honest, the sentence isn't very controversial because what it implies would be universally accepted to be true. However, otherwise the quotation marks should go and the sentence structure is re-ordered, such as "Praying to Ganesha is often associated with success and prosperity." Then again, that kind of statement has already been indirectly said many times previously in the article. GizzaChat © 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch on the "success and prosperity" line, I just edited it as you suggested.  That is a good example of something that is so widely known about Ganesha it would be hard to expect a challenge to it (except among some Buddhist traditions where he is considered a demon). Standards of referencing vary depending on the level of scrutiny an article is going to get.  Generally the standard of referencing in the Hinduism articles seems poor to me.  We should make an effort to raise the bar on standards for inclusion of content to prevent downward creep in quality once an article has become well-sourced.  I would agree that certain general statements that are widely known or generally supported by the article itself do not need to be cited.  However particularly when an article is under work it is helpful to have citations on any sentence that may move away from another citation that supports it.  If I say that in Sri Lanka it is common to offer cheese to Ganesha, should that stay in?  Have you ever heard it? It may be true even if you have never heard it, in which case a reference is needed to prove it (there is no such reference that I know of, by the way).  I would encourage all the editors of Hinduism articles to think more critically about the content in these articles and demand the high standard of scholarship that is part of Indian tradition. Buddhipriya 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree with you. An example Abecedare used on the Talk:India page about excessive sourcing was finding a reference for India being located in Asia. I suppose an example here would be that Ganapati (gaṇapati) is an alternate name for Ganesha but the English translation for Ganapati (Lord/Master of the ganas) would need to be sourced of course. GizzaChat © 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the name Ganapati is so well-known it is hard to dispute.  But if you recall, when I began working on this article, the etymology of the name was one of the first things we worked on.  Remember ga + na?  That is the sort of thing we find everywhere on the Hinduism articles.  Even when references are given, most of them are to web sites of the most fantastic nature.  One of my favorites is this example using the television program Ripley's Believe It Or Not as a reliable source on Sadhus. Buddhipriya 00:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone who has a basic knowledge of Sanskrit can confirm that Ganapati means Lord(pati) of ganas. Ganas are generally regarded servants of Shiva. the pati suffix is very common in Sanskrit. pati means 'lord or master or husband' depending on the context. like 'Gruhaspati' (head of family) means lord of the home, 'Pashupati'(a title of Shiva) means lord of the beasts but Laxmipati(a title of Vishnu) means husband of Laxmi.--Redtigerxyz 13:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worship/festivals section 

message: I just finished editing the lead of the article, (see diff) so that it is now orgainized as follows:
* First para: Who is Ganesha (i.e he is God of ... and represented as ...)?
* Second para: What is the history behind his development ?
* Third para: Who worships him ? 
As such, I have not attempted to change the content of lead but only tried to make it flow better. The only sentence I intentionally deleted, or rather commented out, was the one defining Ishta devata, which I thought was an unnecessary bit of terminology for the lead; note though that that the discussion about Ganpatayas who worship Ganesha as Ishta devata is still in there, though explained in plain English. I also worked in wikilinks to the "Mythology" and "outside India" articles into the lead. I tried to remove redundant repetitions of the fact that he is worshipped by various denominations, and tried to consolidate the various "areas that he is the lord of" into one sentence. 
Finally, I kept the dating of rise of Ganapatayas and the associated texts somewhat vague on intention, since I figure that these are points of contention which are better handled by the respective articles. Currently the lead only states that Ganapatyas arose sometime around 5-9th C which I think is pretty safe ground, right ? If we want to be a bit more committal about the texts, perhaps we can append the words  "in the second millennium AD" after "...principal scriptures dedicated to his worship, the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, were produced".
I did not access any of the 11 cited references while editing the lead, so Buddhipriya and others, please make sure that the citations are still accurately placed! If you have questions about any specific change I made, I'll be happy to clarify. And of course, if goes without saying that others should feel free to tweak stuff around, just as I did. Cheers. Abecedare 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!  I think it reads much better.  I object to the use of a reference to Himalayan Academy Materials in the lead, however, specifically in support of the connection to the word "dharma" which is not widely used as one of his functions.  I have discussed the problems with the source in the preceeding section.  In addition, there is a disturbing use of both Ganesha and Hanuman by Indian nationalist extremists that the linkage to protectors of sanatana dharma invokes.  In some extreme propaganda, both figures are shown in extreme martial forms, fighting for racial purity.  Linkage to the word dharma in this way, which is not supported by general WP:RS should be removed from the lead.  For recent use of Ganesha and Hanuman in this way, see: Martha C. Nussbaum, The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007). . We have put the least reliable reference into the lead and I feel it needs to be changed. Can other editors please comment on this? I request that the line about "protector of dharma" be moved to the talk page pending further discussion before it is used in the article. Buddhipriya 03:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of Lead 

message: "A poem describes the two boys being asked about one of their dispute by their mother. Each of the two sons has unusual features, as shown in this passage:
O, Ganapati
What is it Mother?
Why are you crying?
Karttikeya is pulling my ears
What is this, Skanda? Why are you teasing him?
He first counted my eyes
O, Gajanana ("elephant-Face") this is not proper behaviour from you
He was measuring my trunk, mother mine
These two in one place, she observes and laughs
... And Shiva's consort is agitated.
May she protect you"
From the translation, i feel this is the verse " he Heramba Kim Amba...". These verse are called "Vak-padani Subhashitani" ( 'Subhashits' or verses on conversation). They are fiction(this should be clearly stated) and mostly end with '.... god protect you'(prayer style). this cannot be treated as evidence that the Shiva sons had disputes. Other examples are: "Kas-vyam Shuli..." regarding a instance when Parvati  wittyly answers the door and doesnot take Shiva inside the house, ending with " let the defeated(by Parvati' wit) Shiva protect you"; "bhikshu Kyasti..." regarding a quarrel between Laxmi and Parvati about inferiority of the other' husband, ending with" let this conservation between the daughter of the ocean(Laxmi) and mountain(Parvati) protect you". this does not mean Shiva and Parvati had disputes or Laxmi and Parvati quarelled. 
Also i failed to understand  "Each of the two sons has unusual features". Big ears, long trunk and 12 eyes(6 heads) are usual featurs of Ganesha and Skanda resp.
Also in translation, who said what should given by name(maybe in brackets) for clarification. Since i know the verse i can make out but someone reads the translation for the first time may not be able to understand.--Redtigerxyz 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This theme of disputes was first introduced using a reference to Naik (Naik, R. S.; Laxman Varma (ill.) (1985). Ganesh. Ahmedabad: Bharat Anada. (1995 reprint edition)., which I have not read and cannot locate among online booksellers.  Is there an ISBN number for it?  I would like to obtain a copy if possible so I can review it so I can understand if it is an academic work, a devotee publication, or whatever.  The idea of the parents siding with one or the other boys has not come up before in my reading and I have not had time to search for that theme in other sources. The only other common myth about conflict between them that comes up often is the myth about competition for the wives, which is not cited here.  We just removed a lot of mythological material elsewhere, and I hope we can keep this article relatively free of it, placing the myths in the other articles.  The issue of conflict being a mythic representation of cultic tensions is cited by Gupta.  The question of how the boys were identified as brothers could be explained by historical assimilation of both the Ganesha cult and the Skanda cult to the dominant cult of Shiva, and the gradual decline of the Skanda cult in the North.  However this would all require more length, and the article is already just about at the length limit.  The devotional poem is from a third source, and I added it to give a lighter balance to the historical reference.  I agree that it is clearly of late composition and does not reflect any story of which I am aware in Puranic sources.  I will try to look over this issue in more detal but will not have much time today.  My general sense of this is that one approach in the short run would be to move all of the text regarding disputes to the talk page pending rework.  I do not thing it is a major subject that needs to be in the main Ganesha article unless it is very well-sourced.  However, other editors may feel strongly one way or the other, so let them chime in.  Fortunately there are no emergenices on Wikipedia. Buddhipriya 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me comment since I added the reference. Naik maybe is a devotee publication, and suprisingly, it has no IBSN number (the only two things on the back are "Vedanta Society Bookseller" and a price). Looking back on this, the information is probably in Naik's point of view and I've removed it. However, there's evidence the brothers had disputes, since "Stories of the rivalry between the brothers may reflect historical tensions between sects. Prior to the emergence of Ganesha, Skanda had a long and glorious career as an important martial deity, from about 500 BC to about 600 AD, when his worship declined significantly in the North, almost synchronously with the successful rise of his rival Ganesha" is cited from another book. Happy editing, [sd] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been objection to use of this poem I am moving the text out of the article to the talk page pending further discussion about it.  I agree it is of late compostion, but perhaps would be useful as color for the piece.  However the article is long and we do not need it.  I think the historical material related to the sects should remain, as it is well-cited and gives a clue to the deeper forces that shape these myths. Buddhipriya 07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this evidence that the brothers had disputes????? 

message: Give a cheer for Galena11 who is joining the gang (gaṇa) working to improve the article.  Here is what she has said she will do as a process: "I'll put the comments in the text, so that its easy to find them, and will recap them on the article talk page when I finish a section or when we get several to address, whichever comes first.  I've put this article on my watch list, so I can keep track of the conversation and will discuss implementing any changes with everyone.  Will that be OK?"  It sounds great to me, but if other editors have suggestions about process please chime in. Buddhipriya 06:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process for feedback on copyedit 

message: There may have been an edit conflict, so I think I have not integrated the latest post on this issue yet.  
I would like to parse this sentence in detail: 'Thus, Ganesha is propitiated as the 'Dispeller of Obstacles' by Śaivites, Vashṇavites, Śaktas, Smārtas, and Kumāras." I have been avoiding editing these marginal sources in the article, preferring to get some consensus on the talk page.  This sentence is sourced from Navaratnam, Ratna Ma. Aum Gaṇeśa, the Peace of God.  As I mentioned earlier, I have not seen this and cannot locate it via online booksellers.  I see three distinct issues raised by this.  1. worship by Saivites, Vaisnavas, and Saktas.  2. worship by Smartas 3. the reference to Kumaras, and the characterization of Ganesha as "Dispeller of Obstacles".  Points 1 and 2 are already covered in the article and can easily be strongly referenced.  The reference to Kumaras is probably true, since almost all Hindus workship Ganesha, but it is unclear why that sect is being mentioned.  The point being made is that Ganesha is very widely popular, and that his worship is compatible with other other sects.  Other editors have proposed that we delete the Kumara reference and I agree.  Point 5 is another effort to get in the idea of Ganesha as "Lord of Obstacle Removal", which was the subject of a prior discussion in the days prior to this sentence being added.  It seems to be an attempt to once again get the concept in that people like the idea of Ganesha removing obstacles (which is certainly true).  If this theme is of such interest, I propose that we expand a section in the article body to put more emphasis on the fact that Ganesha both places and removes obstacles.  It would be better to talk this out here and get agreement on strategy that to try to "spin" the lead to just put forward his role as a remover of obstacles.  I think we should also note that the continued appearance of this issue in edits suggests that the issue is of importance to that editor, and that we should engage in dialog about this point to be sure we are considering all points of view.  
I propose that we parse these five concepts out individually, keeping points 1 and 2 with strong references added, and deleting the remaining points.  Is there any agreement for this approach? Buddhipriya 03:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this edit, since I think it reflects consensus, and I want to get it done while the copyeditor is doing active work. The lead already had the following general sentence that is supported by strong references: "Worship of Ganesha is considered complementary with the worship of other forms of the divine, and various Hindu sects worship him regardless of other affiliations."  At least in the lead I do not think further detail is needed.  His connection as one of the five Smarta divinities is explained in the body of the text. Buddhipriya 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the problem reference in the lead 

message: I removed the reference to hibiscus flowers that had been added to the image text because it is not clear to me why it is important to stress that particular flower.  When the hibiscus first began to appear in edits, I added a citation regarding the fact that it is one of the red flowers used in worship.  However the repeated emphasis on it is puzzling, as it is only one of many flowers that could be used.  Is this point of particular importance? A general theme that is not in the article now but which could be added is that Ganesha is generally considered to be easy of approach, not fussy about details of worship.  His approachability has been one of the keys to his popularity.  It is true that he loves red, and two of his names in the Ganesha Sahasranama are Rakta ("The Red One"), and Raktambara ("Garbed in Red").  So anything red is likely to be pleasing to him.  But he sees what is in the heart of the devotee and accepts even the simplest gifts, given without ceremony, with delight if there is love in the heart of the devotee.  I hope that someone reading the article will not think they have to go get Hibiscus flowers to do puja.  What if they do not grow in the devotee's region? Additional citations related to materials used in worship can be added if needed, but let's watch for overgeneralizations. If a reference is needed to prove that hibiscus flowers are used in his worship, cite Martin-Dubost, p. 216, bottom right corner, which provides a picture specifically mentioning their use. Buddhipriya 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About those hibiscus flowers 

message: * The statue | CLARIFY: is this referring to the statue shown in the photo, or to the Martin-Dubost statue?  | REQUEST: is it possible to get a photo of the statue referred to by Martin-Dubost, to elminate this confusion? 
I would love to upload the picture in Martin-Dubost if I could get a clue about the copyright issues. The picture that appears in the upper right corner of p. 213 of Martin-Dubost is picture 31 in chapter VIII.  Photographic credits list "American Institute of Indian Studies, Ramnagar" as the source.  I have never really studied Wikipedia policies on this sort of thing.  Can anyone help me understand this case in particular? Buddhipriya 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iconography

message: NOTE: According to the WP:MoS, bulleted lists should be converted to paragraph format when possible/logical.  I did so in this section.
*I rewrote the fourth paragraph to clarify the differences between the numbers of arms.  Also, the original paragraph introduced the symbology of the item in the arms but didn't expand on them.  If these symbols are different than those mentioned in the Iconography section, you might want to expand on that in this paragraph.
I do not understand this suggestion.  Can you say it another way?  I also am not sure what text you are referring to due to possible changes in content order that may have taken place.Buddhipriya 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common attributes

message: ====Lead====
*Somehow the references related to the dating of the Ganapatya were mixed up with dating for the three main scriptures.  I adjusted the citations so they now correctly support dating of the sect, and will add references related to the three main scriptures.  Note that the scriptural dating is a matter of some controvery. Buddhipriya 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since dating is now footnoted in the body of the article, do footnotes need to be applied in the lead?  Or is this item now closed? Buddhipriya 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am satisfied that this is .  Galena11 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I cut the sentence, which was not needed. Buddhipriya 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ganapati is a synonym for Ganesha.  Edited to make this explicit. Buddhipriya 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The phrasing "In Tamil country..." was a direct quote from Narain.  I found a second reference in the glossary of Martin-Dubost.  It is the Tamil language for sure.  I rephrased and add a second reference to Martin-Dubost. Buddhipriya 02:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added translations for both words and deleted the Devanagari, leaving only IAST.  Please give feedback on your ability to see the IAST. Buddhipriya 02:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am seeing these as a box, but the reason I noted it is that it is inconsistent.  For example, I think that the letter n with a small mark beneath it displays in the first couple of instances of "gana" but not in these.  If this is simply the issue of my browser (IE 7), then I will cease noting them.  Galena11 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to nail down exactly what rendering issues you are having so they can be handled precisely.  IE7 should have no problem with the display so long as you have the correct settings and a Unicode font on your system that includes the necessary Unicode ranges. Would you please visit Help:Multilingual support (Indic) and check the section for your operating system in order to examine some basic settings that may affect your reading experience?  Since your rendering support may differ from mine, your reporting of what you are seeing is helpful. You mention seeing "the letter n with a small mark beneath it" which is IAST romanization (shown here: ṇ) for Devanagari (shown here: ).  Do you see the characters where I have typed them next to "shown here"?  Your answer will help me understand your rendering. You may have uncovered an important point about usability. Note to editors: The IAST tag was recently upgraded specifically to address a bug in IE7 rendering.  If Indic text is included in the article without an IAST tag, the symptom that Galena is reporting can occur. If this is it, the problem may be due to failure to have IAST tags on some words that include Indic text. Buddhipriya 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've tested this and here are my results:  1) I patched IE 7 and it is now rendering all of the characters.  2)  We use IE 6 at work, and so I looked at the article and the "boxes" display in the article when using IE 6. I can't really mess with my settings on my work computer to test the fix you recommended above. 3) Firefox does not appear to have any issues rendering the text. Galena11 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds encouraging.  I do not have any data on the prevalence of browsers but IE7 was aggressively pushed out to home users via the Microsoft automatic patch program, and was also widely implemented in many corporate environments due to security issues.  All new Vista systems being sold are supposed to work transparently with Indic text.  Firefox does not seem to be an issue either.  So long as IAST text is wrapped in an IAST tag, the majority of browsers should see it.  I am wondering if any other editors have an opinion about this, however.  We have not got any standards about use of IAST and efforts to get discussions about it going generally clear the room pretty fast. Buddhipriya 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we move these items to "closed" and you can open a new thread for the IAST standards either here or in the proper forum?  Galena11 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I cut the phrase about festival displays as it is not needed.  Buddhipriya 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I find it difficult to see the lower arm detail well enough in this picture to identify them unless I make projections into the image based on what I know from other sources.  The gesture of the trunk to Ganesha's left lower hand probably indicates that the lower left hand contains something tasty which he is sampling.  If this is correct, the standard attribute for the lower right hand could be his own broken tusk.  I hesitate to guess in the text however. Buddhipriya 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text:   Dates have been added.  Galena11 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Redundant POV word "tasty" has been deleted. Buddhipriya 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the reference to the specific cave and added a link the article for Ellora Caves Buddhipriya 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I rewrote the sentence to clarify that it is the motif that is the giveaway.  Note that in describing these images when saying "right" or "left" it is good to say if you mean the deity's left or right, or the viewer's perspective ("E.g., Ganesha is holding a sweet in his left hand, seen here to the viewer's right.") Buddhipriya 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the current sentence referring to this in the paragraph is suffcient.  Galena11 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good.   Galena11 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK.   Galena11 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Galena11 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed Items

message: *Somehow the references related to the dating of the Ganapatya were mixed up with dating for the three main scriptures.  I adjusted the citations so they now correctly support dating of the sect, and will add references related to the three main scriptures.  Note that the scriptural dating is a matter of some controvery. Buddhipriya 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since dating is now footnoted in the body of the article, do footnotes need to be applied in the lead?  Or is this item now closed? Buddhipriya 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am satisfied that this is .  Galena11 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: * and devis (female deities) | RELEVANCE? I believe that Ganesha is primarily rendered as being male, therefore, I think this reference to the female is just adding "wordiness".
:: I cut the sentence, which was not needed. Buddhipriya 21:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ganapati is a synonym for Ganesha.  Edited to make this explicit. Buddhipriya 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrasing "In Tamil country..." was a direct quote from Narain.  I found a second reference in the glossary of Martin-Dubost.  It is the Tamil language for sure.  I rephrased and add a second reference to Martin-Dubost. Buddhipriya 02:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added translations for both words and deleted the Devanagari, leaving only IAST.  Please give feedback on your ability to see the IAST. Buddhipriya 02:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am seeing these as a box, but the reason I noted it is that it is inconsistent.  For example, I think that the letter n with a small mark beneath it displays in the first couple of instances of "gana" but not in these.  If this is simply the issue of my browser (IE 7), then I will cease noting them.  Galena11 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to nail down exactly what rendering issues you are having so they can be handled precisely.  IE7 should have no problem with the display so long as you have the correct settings and a Unicode font on your system that includes the necessary Unicode ranges. Would you please visit Help:Multilingual support (Indic) and check the section for your operating system in order to examine some basic settings that may affect your reading experience?  Since your rendering support may differ from mine, your reporting of what you are seeing is helpful. You mention seeing "the letter n with a small mark beneath it" which is IAST romanization (shown here: ṇ) for Devanagari (shown here: ).  Do you see the characters where I have typed them next to "shown here"?  Your answer will help me understand your rendering. You may have uncovered an important point about usability. Note to editors: The IAST tag was recently upgraded specifically to address a bug in IE7 rendering.  If Indic text is included in the article without an IAST tag, the symptom that Galena is reporting can occur. If this is it, the problem may be due to failure to have IAST tags on some words that include Indic text. Buddhipriya 01:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've tested this and here are my results:  1) I patched IE 7 and it is now rendering all of the characters.  2)  We use IE 6 at work, and so I looked at the article and the "boxes" display in the article when using IE 6. I can't really mess with my settings on my work computer to test the fix you recommended above. 3) Firefox does not appear to have any issues rendering the text. Galena11 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds encouraging.  I do not have any data on the prevalence of browsers but IE7 was aggressively pushed out to home users via the Microsoft automatic patch program, and was also widely implemented in many corporate environments due to security issues.  All new Vista systems being sold are supposed to work transparently with Indic text.  Firefox does not seem to be an issue either.  So long as IAST text is wrapped in an IAST tag, the majority of browsers should see it.  I am wondering if any other editors have an opinion about this, however.  We have not got any standards about use of IAST and efforts to get discussions about it going generally clear the room pretty fast. Buddhipriya 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we move these items to "closed" and you can open a new thread for the IAST standards either here or in the proper forum?  Galena11 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology and other names

message: * He may be portrayed  standing, dancing, taking heroic action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down, or engaging in a remarkable range of contemporary situations when depicted in festival displays. | CLARIFY: what is the "festival display" comment modifying?  does it refer only to the contemporary situations, or to any of these postures?
:: I cut the phrase about festival displays as it is not needed.  Buddhipriya 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it difficult to see the lower arm detail well enough in this picture to identify them unless I make projections into the image based on what I know from other sources.  The gesture of the trunk to Ganesha's left lower hand probably indicates that the lower left hand contains something tasty which he is sampling.  If this is correct, the standard attribute for the lower right hand could be his own broken tusk.  I hesitate to guess in the text however. Buddhipriya 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Dates have been added.  Galena11 17:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Redundant POV word "tasty" has been deleted. Buddhipriya 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the reference to the specific cave and added a link the article for Ellora Caves Buddhipriya 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I rewrote the sentence to clarify that it is the motif that is the giveaway.  Note that in describing these images when saying "right" or "left" it is good to say if you mean the deity's left or right, or the viewer's perspective ("E.g., Ganesha is holding a sweet in his left hand, seen here to the viewer's right.") Buddhipriya 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the current sentence referring to this in the paragraph is suffcient.  Galena11 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iconography

message: * A hand turned towards the devotee is often in the gesture of protection or "no fear" (abhaya mudra). | MOVED to last paragraph of Iconography section. Also removed "devotee", as it assumes that all viewers of any given Ganesha image are his devotees.
I rephrased the sentence in its new position to give more emphasis to the continuity of the modern depiction with the old form. Buddhipriya 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.   Galena11 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK.   Galena11 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Galena11 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common attributes

message: I suggest that editors watch for possible political propaganda and/or sock activity both on Ganesha and Ganesha outside Hinduism.
*This unsourced claim of a connection between Janus and Ganesha just made by User:Gv365 () is specifically refuted on the article for Ganesha outside Hinduism.  A current version of that article containing the refutation appears  here.  
*The original claim regarding the two-headed Janus was added to Ganesha outside Hinduism by User:Redtigerxyz in this edit .
*User:Redtigerxyz was the subject of impersonation by Maleabroad via the sock User:Redtigerxyz1. To be very clear, I am not accusing User:Redtigerxyz of being a sock of Maleabroad.
*User:Redtigerxyz1 was confirmed to be User:Maleabroad as a result of a checkuser request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Maleabroad .
*User:Randomatom001, another sock of User:Maleabroad, has been active on Ganesha outside Hinduism. , as shown by this sample diff: .  
*User:Gv365 also makes unsourced claims regarding a Vedic Ganapati : .  These claims are specifically refuted in the current version of the Ganesha article. 
*User:Gv365 makes unsourced claims that Ganesha was "leader of the guardians and other security troops", themes which are connected to the use of Ganesha by extreme militant nationalists, as was just discussed in connection with the Lord of Dharma claim: 
*The use of both Hanuman and Ganesha for militant nationalist propaganda as "protector of dharma" has previously been noted here.
Buddhipriya 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are particular sections of this document which are under active (i.e., contested) revision, it might be better for me to wait to copyedit them.  I'm happy to review any (relatively) stable sections, but please tag and/or advise me of the sections I should hold off on. Galena11 18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of today I am not aware that any of the sections are contested in particular.  We had a little flurry related to a particular couple of weak sources.  I have been trying to follow your edit path to strengthen material that I notice after you have worked on it, so some things may expand in your wake.  I assume that is OK, but you prefer a different process please advise. The issue of the iconography triggered an expansion of the section on vahanas, because the article was only mentioning the best-known one associated with Ganesha (the mouse). Buddhipriya 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its fine for you to make changes after I've c/e'd, of course!  Once I've reached the end of the article, I'll do one final pass to proof any changes you've made.  Galena11 18:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  And after that, I hope you will watchlist the article so you continue on as a permanent member of the editing team. Buddhipriya 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please note recent edit activity 

message: I am unable to reach the following site which is now listed in the external links: 108 names of Ganesh and meanings.  Last time I looked at it I was unable to determine where the name list it provides came from.  I recommend that the site be removed from the list of external links.  A better name list, including a complete version of one of the two Ganesha Sahasranamas, is available on this other site which is already included in the external links: Ganesh: Symbol and presence.  I have verified that the sahasranama given there is generally consistent with what it claims to be, based on other sources.  So removal of the first site is not critical to the name issue, which is the only thing it claims to cover (without citing any WP:RS. Buddhipriya 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site is back up now, so that is not the issue.  I still think the site should be deleted because it cites no reliable sources and the selling of puja services constitutes a commercial spam link. Buddhipriya 06:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one objected to removal of the site selling puja services, so I removed it. Buddhipriya 19:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  error reaching an external link 

message: This is turning into a really excellent article. There's only one thing that confused me. I was looking for the stories of how Ganesha received the head of an elephant. It took me a time or two through the article to realize that the wikilinked "mythological anecdotes" led to a separate article with those stories (rather than to a general article about 'mythological anecdotes'). I think many people will be looking for those stories and also be confused.
I noticed that the Mythological anecdotes of Ganesha article used to be part of this article but was considered too long. I think it's too important to remove it altogether. I suggest a section titled something like "Myth and legends" that briefly touches on the fact that there are various stories and legends about Ganesha, his birth and life. And then have a link there to the "main article" with those stories. Further, the term "anecdotes" sounds unencyclopedic, or too casual, or something. "Legends of Ganesha" might be better.
My apologies if this has already been discussed ad infinitum. Great work on the article. ॐ Priyanath  talk 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for chiming in!  Yes, this has been discussed at great length already, but it looks like we need to keep working on it some more.  The problem is that there are many variant stories about how he got the elephant head, which is what we say now in the article.  We have been trying to keep the article length at the cutoff for where the Wikipedia editing interface complains that it is too long, and currently it is under that limit (previously it was over the limit).  I will put this issue in as an open issue under the copyeditor's worklist so we do not forget to look at it. Buddhipriya 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth and legend 

message: For discussion about whether or not the See also list should include links to articles that are mentioned in the body of the article, see: Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#See_also_and_repetition_of_links_in_article.  I have gone back and forth in my own thinking about this and now lean toward cutting back the See also section to comply with the general idea that if an article has been mentioned in the body of the text, it does not need to be in See also.  What do others think about this?  I installed a draft of a Ganesha navigation template that may be useful on other Ganesha pages.  Would this type of template be a good alternative for the See also list?  Buddhipriya 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also list versus link farm 

message: Under the beautiful picture of Ganesha it is written God of Obstacles. Well, I always knew that Ganesha is a Remover of Obstacles vighna-nashaka never creator of Obstacles as it appears! This might be a literal translation of vighneshwara. Here I understand that ishwara means controller - one who has powers to remove the obstacles. – Apnavana 14:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both placing and removing obstacles are key functions of his, as the text of the article explains.  There are some detailed quotations regarding this in the text. People like to think of him as removing obstacles, but often forget who put them there in the first place. :) Buddhipriya 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never particularly liked the Hindu gods template on this page (and elsewhere) because of the gross simplifications it involves.  Ganesha has multiple functions and associations, and while "God of obstacles" is correct, it has been a point of contentional again and again because so many people are mainly thinking of him as a god of "good luck" or something along those lines.  Other aspects of the template seem oversimplified as well, such as the section on consorts which has no place for the alternative view that he never married.  "Affiliation: deva" has always struck me as sounding like a baseball card or video game character grouping.  At any rate, I would like to adjust the template simply to get rid of the "God of X" category to see how that would look.  Does anyone feel strongly about this?  Other devas are just as oversimplified, e.g. Shiva which calls him the Destructor in the Trimurti, a grouping which I have recently challenged as a largely Western way of thinking about the devas.  Is it time for the template to be rethought across the board? Buddhipriya 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People like to think of him as removing obstacles, but often forget who put them there in the first place. :) Aside the intended joke, I would like to believe that obstacles are created by man by performing wrong karma and finding the difficulties he prays to God for removal which God does out of His infinite grace. I have not come across a single epithet conveying the meaning of creator of obstacles in his 1000 names! God of wisdom could be a better substitute, I feel. As regards Template, yes, I agree with you that the time has come for a rethought. Many scholarly editors are coming in and process of change must continue. – Apnavana 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  this was discussed before at Talk:Ganesha#God_of_.28removal_of.29_obstacles. Apnavana i felt likewise but others felt otherwise.--Redtigerxyz 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganesha's function as Vighnakarta is documented by the citations now given in the article, and more can be added if this is a matter of continuing interest.  His origin in intimately bound up with his role as an obstructor of sacrificial activity, which is why he is invoked first in hopes that he will not create problems in the performance of the rite. The introduction to the Ganesha Sahasranama as given in the Ganesha Purana I.46 tells the story of how Shiva was about to fight the demon Tripura, but was not successful in his attack.  Shiva realized that the reason for his failure was that he had forgotten to pray to Ganesha prior to the attack.  Upon recognizing this error, he invoked Ganesha, who appeared before him and recited his own thousand names for the benefit of Shiva as a mantra which he could use for success in the battle.  After completing this devotion, Shiva tried his attack again and achieved success.  So the ability of Ganesha to impede success is the fundamental backdrop to the story of how the sahasranama was given.  This version is from the recension provided in Sharma (1993). the name  (Creator of Obstacles) appears in verse 51 of the sahasranama. Buddhipriya 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vighneshwara - Remover of obstacles 

message: Once again the same editor has raised the same "Remover of Obstacles" issue that has been discussed at length on the talk page and which is refuted in the article text: .  I ask other editors to examine this edit and comment if this is becoming a POV issue. Buddhipriya 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have the dubious "God of Wisdom and Plenty" that has crept into the template, sourced by some unclear item.  Can some of the other editors please look closely at this strange claim added in this edit: ? Buddhipriya 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remover of obstacles again 

message: Another editor has added the following material sourced by some general book which is not specifically about Ganesha: 
He is the counterpart of the Greek god Hermes and the Roman deity Mercury.The Atlas of the Ancient World - Margaret Oliphant  - p.158 
I think this information is dubious and should be removed from the article.  It is not sourced by a reference work on Ganesha, but from a general book and the soucing used for that book regarding Ganesha is not clearly identified.  Unless some confirming source can be found in a WP:RS specifically related to Ganesha, I consider this WP:FRINGE material that requires sourcing according to the policies for fringe statements.  Is there any objection to moving this statement to the talk page pending stronger sourcing? Buddhipriya 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the quality of the sources that have been added regarding this: .  All of them should be removed, and the tendency to degrade the source quality was previously discussed when the the "Lord of Dharma" nonsense was refuted.  This is the same pattern of use of WP:FRINGE material that needs to be challenged. Do any of the other editors see this as a problem as I do? Buddhipriya 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has replied to my challenge of this disputed material that is sourced only by weak sources, so I am moving it here for further discussion.  These strange claims appear only in marginal sources, and I am explicitly asking for some discussion about source quality:
He is the counterpart of the Greek god Hermes and the Roman deity Mercury.The Atlas of the Ancient World - Margaret Oliphant  - p.158Hoodoo Mysteries: Folk Magic, Mysticism and Rituals By Ray T. Malbrough pg.66Wicca Spellcraft for Men: A Spellbook for Male Pagans By A. J. Drew pg.215
There was previously a claim made that Ganesha is the counterpart of the god Janus, an equally strange claim that has been systematically refuted in the article where that claim was made. (See: Ganesha_outside_Hinduism#Speculation_related_to_Janus)  In order to have a WP:RS for this type of cross-cultural claim we need to see sources that that have strong academic sourcing both in Ganesha studies and in Greco-Roman mythology, and the sources put forward meet neither test.  Refuting a WP:FRINGE theory is problematic because when a fringe claim is made, the claim may be so strange no one has bothered to refute it.  The guideline for WP:FRINGE material is that strange claims require strong sources.  This is a good opportunity to ask other editors if the want to keep standards high for this article, or let the decline. 
I just did a quick index check on several of the strong Ganesha reference works currently used in the article and cannot find any reference at all to Mercury, even to dispute it, so this claim is even more of a fringe item than the Janus claim, which is at least mentioned (for purposes of refutation).  I would like to know specifically what primary sources, if any, are mentioned by the weak secondary sources used as references in the above statement.  That is, upon what citations do the authors of the above weak sources rely in making this claim? Buddhipriya 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your effort in trying to locate sources.  However the issue is not whether or not you can locate such sources, but the quality of the sources.  That is what I am trying to get discussion about.  Regarding the cross-cultural material in general, which may be an interest of yours, a problem is that some of this may be pure speculation rather than anything that can be proven to be true.  Following a chain of citations backwards to try to determine the original source for some of these concepts is what I am trying to do.  Since there seems to be no mention of Mercury in any of the strong sources on Ganesha that are already used in the article, it seems strange to see this idea popping up in books which do not cite any of those solid sources.  If we can trace back to who originally said this, we may have something we can mention in the form "Mr. X said..." if it can be shown that this strange idea has become notable because it has influenced pop literature.  But we still need to find some sort of academic sourcing for it. The Internet book you just referred to does not cite any source whatsoever for the Ganesha statement, so it is useless for tracing the claim.  It is not a WP:RS for the subject of Ganesha. Buddhipriya 10:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed material 

message: I am moving the following disputed material to the talk page as it represents a continued effort to get the "God of Plenty" idea into the article using sources that are not WP:RS for Ganesha.  It is not clear to me why an Indian wildlife guide must be consulted as a WP:RS for this material.  There is also a devotee publication being used, and in the previous discussion about "Lord of Dharma" we agreed that devotee material of this type do not have the same standing as WP:RS as academic publications.  We are seeing an attempt here to degrade the source quality for this article, and I ask for opinion by other editors if this is acceptable. Here is the material I am disputing:
God_of                   = WisdomHindu Gods: The Spirit of the Divine By Priya Hemenway and PlentyInsights Guide - Indian Wildlife  pg.30
We have seen over and over the repeated attempt to change the tag line on the main Ganesha deity box, and this is just one more pass on the same thing. Buddhipriya 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More disputed sources