Talk:Ganesha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ganesha article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Featured article star Ganesha is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 30, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Contents


[edit] American culture

I am kind of surprised that an article this in depth totally ignores the fact that Ganesh is probably the best known Hindu deity in American culture. Just one instance of which is the Simpson's episode that included him. But just in general, Americans who couldn't tell the difference between Indira and Mahatma Gandhi recognize the name Ganesh. That is worthy of note in an English encyclopedia. 75.3.226.166 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article notes that he is one of the best known dieties; there is no need to mention American culture in particular?59.180.170.155 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe a note on "Western culture" might be more appropriate, but you'd have to provide good citations. Brutannica (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm embarrased to admit that was the reason Ganesha was the first Hindu god I'd heard of... "Mr. Simpson, please do not offer my god a peanut." I haven't seen that episode since the 1990s. --Bobak (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Main page

Any suggestions for a particular date for Ganesha to appear on the front page and we can approach Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.--Redtigerxyz 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ganesh Chaturthi is not for a long while. Diwali is too soon. Hmm --Blacksun 10:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest "1 Jan": as Ganesha is god of beginnings and 1 January is beginning of the year. or "Ganesha Jayanti" which is Magha Chaturthi according to Hindu calender; which will in late Jan or early February. (I dont know the exact date yet as I havent bought next year' calender) Ganesh Jayanti is birthday of Ganesha as the son of Aditi and Kashyapa in one of his avtars. (Ganesh Chaturthi being as son of Parvati and Shiva)--Redtigerxyz 10:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 1 January is a good idea. Kkrystian 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It is going to be a tough sell but worth a try. --Blacksun 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
IMO, seeing the reactions, that Ganesha Jayanti would be a better product. I will let you know the date as soon as possible.--Redtigerxyz 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ganesha Jayanti is on Sunday: 10 February, 2008.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, as well. Kkrystian (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ganesha on 30 December, issue closed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just came by this as a featured article and noticed a ridiculous bias in the following statement, "Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography." How is the Virgin Birth of Jesus considered a "belief" and apparently the Hindu religion stories are "mythology"? I am not religious, but I believe that the definition difference between mythology and religion is just that mythologies are no longer practiced or are dead religions. Please try and create some balance in dealing with religions from a NPOV. I would fix this myself but the Knight's Templar Wikis would probably change it back. --Thehighlndr (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your asserted belief about the relative meanings of the words "mythology" and "religion" is somewhat ideosyncratic. Another widely used meaning of "myth" is something of which belief in it is more important to the believers then whether or not it is historically true, and need not necessarily be a religious matter. For example, the Myth of the Battle of Britain (in which Great Britain was at one point saved from invasion in WW2 "solely" by the heroic exploits of "a few" Spitfire pilots - at best only partially true in several respects) is an important factor contributing to British self-identity; hence it is mythical as well as (partly) historical.
To address your religious example, what is "religion" or "myth" about the births of Ganesh and Jesus depends on the currently accepted (by whom?) status of what is written in canonical tests and/or widely believed (by whom?) about those events, matters subject to debate and change. You may be aware, for example, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican Church, has recently reminded Anglicans that several widely and long-held beliefs about the birth of Jesus are myths rather than matters of (his) canonical religious faith: I believe these myths (which, remember, are not necessarily untrue) included his mother's virginity as well as the attendence of "3 kings", the mid-winter date of the event, and so on.
In short, what you see as "ridiculous bias" seems to me (a western non-Christian, for what it's worth), as a rather subtle interpretation of meanings on your part. I don't say your concerns shouldn't be addressed by rewording if appropriate and possible - this would I imagine require a fairly extensive knowledge of Hindu "canonical texts", non-canonical beliefs, and hierarchical authority (apologies for the western-biased terminology!) While I certainly do not possess such knowledge, you may well, so go ahead and propose some specific changes.195.92.67.74 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Directly from Wiki on Mythology, "In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe to be based on fact but which is not true. However, the field of mythology does not use this definition...." which is great except that Wiki is used mostly by the general public. Using this term more heavily for some religions like Hindu and avoiding on others like Christianity is like the term "Pagan" to describe any religions that were not Christianity. Usage determines definition, not the other way around. Either get all of the top world religions Wiki's to use an equal balance and usage of Mythology or change most discussions to belief with commentary about the historical accuracy of any events in each religion.
For the record...it is concensus among Christian Biblical scholars that all of the Birth Stories of Jesus are complete fiction or myths designed to tie into existing messiah myths at the time. This is easy to verify and was shown on A&E's "Mysteries of the Bible" and Jesus specials almost every year. They have also confirmed that Jesus was most likely born in the summer or possibly in the fall. If the Archbishop of Canterbury uses myth in the same manner and separates it from Canon...Wiki's usage on large portions of other religions is calling them fiction to the average Christian or average viewer based on it's actual modern usage. BTW: I am agnostic, so I only want balance and NPOV on Wiki for these Religions. I would be amused to call them all Mythologies, but we have enough wars already;) --Thehighlndr (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] overlap of text in the Aum section

I noticed that the text in the Aum section overlapped the picture (in the same section). I would have fixed it, but do not know how to. Could someone look into the same? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.80.82 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milk Miracle

Main Article: Hindu Milk Miracle

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

[edit] Milk Miracle

Main Article: Hindu milk miracle

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

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

A whole section is probably against WP:UNDUE, but a line, or at least a See Also entry on the Hindu milk miracle would definitely add value to the article. deeptrivia (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Even a see also Hindu milk miracle is an undue. Is Hindu milk miracle the only miracle attributed to Ganesha? there are n no. of them including visions to devotees, him emerging in stones and tree trunks etc.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As the guy who wrote Hindu milk miracle, I'd agree that a section on the event is *way* too much. I'm ambivalent about the see also, especially as statues of Ganesha weren't the only ones involved. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing link issues

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

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

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

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

  • Johnsen, Linda (2002), The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism, Indianapolis: Alpha, ISBN 0-02-864227-9 

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

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