Talk:Ganesha/Archive 3

message: Almost none of the images included in the article, as far as I can see, have complete sourcing, licensing and/or fair use explanation and therefore the article will perhaps fail the FA criterion 3. For example:
* :Image:Ganapati.jpg - we cannot use images on unknown copyright status, except under fair use, and it will be almost impossible to justify fair use for any image in the article, since so many alternate images are easily available.
::* Will remove image from page once a suitable replacement is found Abecedare 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ganapati.jpg is a very popular image of Ganesha, which can also be found on many sites on the net. I request that this image should not be removed.--Redtigerxyz 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that web sites use it does not make it legal.  The problem images should be replaced now in order to get the article into compliance with copyright quidelines.  I rather like the authentic old statuary rather than any of the sugar-coated modern pictures and would prefer to see one of the representations dating to before 1500 CE or so used.  I moved a picture of an authentic temple murti from the bottom of the article to the top to replace the problem image. Buddhipriya 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Asked original uploader to clarify license status. Abecedare 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Status clarified. Abecedare 02:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * This is okay since User:Pratheepps's user page confirms that he is the contributor for the image. Abecedare 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * No longer used! Abecedare 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Licensing OK Abecedare 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Message left on original uploader's page to clarify licensing.Abecedare 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Message left on User:Redtigerxyz's page to clarify licensing. Abecedare 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Image is a photo of a Tibetian Thangka.--Redtigerxyz 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Issue resolved since image has been replaced. Abecedare 19:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an important part of article review, thanks so much for doing it.  I would favor getting rid of anything that is dubious right away, as problems with copyright will only cause issues if the article goes to FAC. Buddhipriya 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We should make efforts to use pictures that are authentic depictions of Ganesha material.  The article discusses the fact that a major line of the tradition considers him a bachelor, and that the saktis are emanations of his nature, not feminine companions.  This recent interpretative picture which shows Ganesha snuggling up with his lady friends is completely out of line with his traditional representations, and I am not aware of any other depiction that exactly corresponds to this.  It trivializes the issue and personally I find it somewhat offensive. There is no basis for it whatsoever in Ganesha iconographic standards that I know of. Buddhipriya 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To disapprove the argument 'Ganesha snuggling up with his lady friends(using his trunk) is completely out of line with his traditional representations', i have put up an image from Sritattvanidhi. --Redtigerxyz 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image (Ganapati1.jpg) has nothing at all to do with the completely different Verma picture involving a group of females which Ganesha is shown informally gathering with.  Please refer to the comments on the standard iconographic forms which I have made below.  Keeping track of this is now very difficult because comments are not being made in any logical sequence, so they are hard to find and react to. Buddhipriya 06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with the Image of ganesha with the shaktis. In case of other gods also both the interpretation of related goddesses as shaktis (powers) as well as consorts is authentic and so it is in case of Ganesha. A caption that says 'snuggling' might be a bit inappropriate but nothing wrong with the image.
Actually, there is a whole part of ganesha iconography where Ganesha is shown in intimate pose with the shakti. It is a well known and frequently used image in the tantric worship known as Uchchishtaganapati. There is one in Pune in the Trishunda ganapati temple. I am new to wikipedia and am not sure if we can add this content as many people might be 'offended' by it. But if we are worried about authentic information then we should add this iconographic feature as well. I will try to find an image and write something about it. But since I am not in Pune it will take quite some time. --Kaveri 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Licenses 

message: These were all the hidden comments on the page that I could find, many of which were left by Galena.
*In the lead section:  
:I think this was commented out because it was considered unnecessary detail for the lead.  Is it still an open issue? Buddhipriya 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too believe the detail is unnecessary. We can ask other editors on what they think or we can remove it now. GizzaDiscuss © 05:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the photo of the statue in Martin-Dubost, p. 213, upper right corner, I do not understand the copyright issues.  It is a photo of a three-dimensional work, so my understanding is that the photographer holds the right to the photo.  The reproduction in Martin-Dubost of this photo credits the photo to the American Institute of Indian Studies, Ramnagar (credit appears on p. 411, for image VIII-31).  I suspect that this photo does not qualify for use here, but I really don't know.  Can someone else give an opinion on this? The photos from Pal are also of statues, and the two which I mentioned are credited to museums.  These probably also are not OK to use, but I am open to legal advice. Buddhipriya 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on my current understanding of the rules, these photos of three-dimensional statues are not suitable for upload, so I will not pursue this. Buddhipriya 07:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: At the time this issue was raised, we had some discussion regarding how difficult it is to translate the name "Heramba".  The problem is that the name as used in modern Sanskrit does not convey the idea given by the religious etymology, which has previously been discussed.  I would like to leave the name untranslated, but we can go into the details again if anyone feels it would be helpful to do so.  Check the archive page for the prior copyedit round for background citations. Buddhipriya 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding a note on Heramba, where you can discuss the difficulties in translating the word for the reasons you mention, is the best remedy. GizzaDiscuss © 05:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden comments 

message: Since we are doing so much work on images, I have posted a request on the talk page for the Fair Use issues to see if we can attract any independent review.   I think it would be good to nail all of this down now, as it will only cause obstacles later if we do not. Buddhipriya 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use review 

message: I fear that we may go overboard and get too many images into the article.  I would prefer to see a maximum of one very good image per section.  The problem of excessive images comes up in some article reviews, and it is best to get some awareness of the issue before taking the article to FAC. Buddhipriya 06:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree here. I also noticed that the article has hit the 70kb mark because of the number of pictures. This shouldn't be a difficult task. We will keep the images with the best licenses and those with most relevance. GizzaDiscuss © 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture now has thirteen pictures, which I think is too many.  If any more are added, I thinkthey should be used to replace something that is already there.  The article already refers them to Commons where they can find more images. Buddhipriya 06:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images? 

message: Of the thirty-two standard meditation forms for Ganesha that appear in the Sritattvanidhi (), six include a shakti.ref:In Glory of Ganesha, they are: Shakti Ganapati, Ucchista Ganapati, Mahaganapati, Urdhva Ganapati, Uddanda Ganapati, Sankastharana Ganapati. For variations on this list, see: Getty, pp. 20-21.
But the Sritattvanidhi article describes 8 forms with a shakti or 2 of them.(supported by images). The list above misses lakShmI gaNapati(with 2 shaktis) and vara gaNapati.
I have not changed the sentence in article as it is sourced. Please check.--Redtigerxyz 14:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have caught an error in the drawing of Vara Ganapati as shown in Glory of Ganesha, which I know contains some errors.  The paintings of the Sritattvanidhi have been reproduced (or re-imagined) as line drawings in at least three works (Glory of Ganesha being one) and in all cases they have some idiosyncratic changes.  The shakti is missing from Vara Ganapati in Glory of Ganesha, but she is mentioned in the meditation verse.  I will compare the versions I have on hand and will normalize the list.  The situation with Lakshmi-Ganapati is different, as it is an example not of the single shakti motif, but of the two attendant motif.  These may be considered as shaktis, but they may also be considered as attendants in some depictions.  The issue of iconographic form is the point, and I will add a citation related to this. To be sure of this I will need to get back two books which I currently have out on loan, so it may take a few days to nail them down.  I think that the correct list of single-shakti forms in the Sritattvanidhi should be six seven: Vara, Shakti, Ucchista, Maha, Urdhva, Uddanda, and Sankastharana.  I think that Lakshmi form is distinct and should be noted as such.  Once I have the right books I will confirm this.  Buddhipriya 07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have examined the reproductions of the Sritattvanidhi pictures as given in Rao, pp. vi-ix, and compared them with the written descriptions given in Martin-Dubost, pp. 121-123, and have confirmed that the seven using the single-shakti motif are: Vara, Shakti, Ucchista, Maha, Urdhva, Uddanda, and Sankastharana.  The dual shakti motif is used in Laksmi Ganapati.  I then compared the line drawings in Glory of Ganesha against those two sources and found several problems with their placement.  In what may be a printing error, there are clear examples where the line drawings there do not match the descriptions of the meditation forms as given in the Sanskrit descriptions, and the English translations of the Sanskrit are sometimes dubious. I do not know if the problems with the drawings are due to printer error, or some other reason, as some are rather obvious, such as having the wrong number of arms.  The same set of line drawings is used on pp. 60-61 of Grimes, but there are three transpositions in which pictures are assigned to different forms than as assigned in Glory of Ganesha.  I have not checked all the details of which is which, but I am left with the opinion that Glory of Ganesha is a weak source with regard to the issue of the pictures.  I already adjusted the text of the article to bypass the excess detail about which forms have shaktis because it doesn't really matter for purposes of the overview we are giving.  I will add a couple of adjustments to the citations, and eventually the place to document the details would be in the article for the Sritattvanidhi. Buddhipriya 17:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Loving Ganesa: Hinduism's Endearing Elephant - Faced God By Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, Subramuniya p.76: "Varada Ganapati...... His śakti is at His side".(with image)
Vara(Varada) ganapati has a shakti is specifically mentioned.--Redtigerxyz 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of shakti images in [[Sritattvanidhi]] 

message: * Please also add citations in Common Attributes about the crescent moon on the forehead ('Balachandra' epithet) and the third eye in the Basohli image(in the hythobox), if possible.--Redtigerxyz 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon and Trinetra 

message: Please see this discussion. I kept three of them where I thought it was needed. GizzaDiscuss © 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer CE (Common Era) to AD (Anno Domini) but I do not know where the actual Wikipedia documentation is regarding standards for this.  Can you give a link regarding this point? Buddhipriya 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:Dates#Eras. I think we can make a case for using CE in Hinduism related articles, although personally I don't have a strong preference. So you can try to change the AD/BE -> CE/BCE (except in quotes, of course) and see if anyone objects. Abecedare 07:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't have any strong feelings towards either style. Note that my removal was based on the fact that ADs (and for that matter CEs) are redundant in most situations. Nobody tends to say they were born in the 20th century AD/CE. On the other hand, it is nearly always needed for BC/E. Only when a mixture of BC/E dates and AD/CE dates are being thrown in the similar part of an article do I think the AD/CEs are necessary. GizzaDiscuss © 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has objected to replacing AD with CE so far.  Perhaps I should do the replacement, unless someone else wants to. Buddhipriya 03:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ADs 

message: I asked User:Nihonjoe (who is a helpful WikiFairy) to look over the article specifically with regard to formatting, and he had this to say. Buddhipriya 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only image that seemed out of place was the one in the References section. It may be good to find a good place within the body of the article for that one. Other than that, the only suggestion I have is choosing one spelling of Shiva/Śiva and using that one consistently rather than alternating between the two. Alternating will likely confuse some who may think they are two different individuals rather than two spellings/romanizations of the same. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outside reviewer's comment 

message: I would like to add http://www.dhrishticreations.com/files/poojapage.htm in external links.Would that be OK? (Jyntprasad 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, as the article does not cite any WP:RS and does not appear to me to be an authoritative source for gneeral information about Ganesha, which is the subject of this article.  Adding the link could appear to be promotional spam, since the commercial web site sells CDs related to Ganesha puja.  This type of commercial site is not appropriate here. Buddhipriya 01:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I was surprised hearing this. During my visit to Kerala I heard that both Ayyappa and Ganesha, sons of lord Shiva are single. Can this be confirmed and mentioned at the main article? BalanceRestored 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a variety of different traditions related to the marital status of Ganesha, which are covered already in the article.  Is there some specific point that you think is unclear in the current text of the article? If you are asking about the idea that Ganesha has no spouse, that is already covered in the article with the text: "Ganesha's marital status varies widely in mythological stories and the issue has been the subject of considerable scholarly review.[132] One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as a brahmacharin (brahmacārin; celibate).[133]" Buddhipriya 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's great, at least here every view even if contradicting is mentioned properly.BalanceRestored 09:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Single or Never got married