Talk:Sritattvanidhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] copy of prior thread on this article, originally on a user talk page

Thank you for your interest in the article on the Sritattvanidhi. Can you add any book references for the material you have added? We are trying to upgrade the quality of references on many of the Hinduism articles, which are often without citations now. Also, the picture you added has no associated documentation on file explaining where it is from or what the connection is. Can you help with that? I would also love to find an ISBN or book supplier for reproduction of the work that may still be available. It is a classic that needs wider attention. Buddhipriya 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In order to keep conversations in one place on Wikipedia, I will transfer a copy of your remarks here. Thank you so much for replying! If you could upload pictures of all 32 forms showing the text it would be a great contribution. These pictures often appear in degraded forms in devotee publications, often with incorrect identification as to which form is which. If you read the script, could you upload the pictures and also doocument exactly which form appears in each picture, as you did with Mahaganapati? Having the original pictures on file with a systematic documentation of the names of the forms as given in the text would be invaluable to researchers, whc generally cannot obtain access to the source text directly. We could then work together to get the 32 forms integrated into the article. Please reply to this here, on your talk page, to keep the discussion in one place. I will add this page to my watchlist. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~ which will add your name and a link to here in all your submissions. It saves time for the readers.

Repost of reply: You can get the book from: Director prasaranga University of Mysore Manasagangothri Mysore-570006

you can also get the books from online sources like https://www.dkagencies.com/doc/Home.html and serch for mummadi.

I also feel the title srittavanidi for your post on ganapati is not right.

If you need any more info ot if you feel i should post all the 32 paintings along with the original kannada texts, kindly let me know. raja

Buddhipriya 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i have since corected a bit of your post:

1. Maharaja died on 28 march 1868. 2. The first page, the author states thus: May the work sri tattvanidi, which is illustrated and contains secrets of mantras and which is authored by king sri krishna raja, be written without any abstacle. Salutation to Lord ganapati and goddess chamundambika...

Hence we cannot today doubt the authorship and say it was done at his command !

Rajachandra 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

i have added two pictures today. i will upload a new pic of mahaganapati later. i will also transliterate the kannada texts as i progress.

Rajachandra 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are doing great work, thank you. Regarding changing statements that are in published sources, if you have a source that gives a different version, as in the case with authorship, rather than change a cited sentence please add an additional reference with the other point of view, or raise the subject on the talk page so we can work together to get both in. The citation to Martin-Dubost would be considered a reliable source and thus should not be removed. Also, I recommend that we continue further dialog about this on the talk page for the article rather than here, to make it easier for other editors to find these remarks. I will copy this entire thread to there now to preserve some of the good points you have made. Buddhipriya 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding date of death

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

Buddhipriya 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

i can quote any number of sources. you could also see http://www.4dw.net/royalark/India/mysore4.htm.

Ref: 1.Annals of the Mysore Royal family Part 1 & 2 (kannada)- a publication of rhe Royal family of Mysore.(1916) 2.Mummadi Krsihnarajendra wodeyaru (kannada) by O.N.Lingannayya (1940) - More specific- 11PM night on 27 march 1968. 3. Mummadi Krishna raja wodeyaru (kannada)by Dr.R.Gopal & Dr.S. Narendra Prasad- a publication of Directorate of Archeology and Museums, Hospet, Karanataka.(2004)- Puts it as 28 March 1868.

Hope this is sufficient Rajachandra 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict here. Martin Dubost cannot be relied. Annals is virtually a family compendium of wodeyars.Rajachandra 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding authorship

As with the date of death, varying statements of direct authorship can all be stated, giving specific references that meet the test of WP:RS. Is it correct that this quote is from vol. 1 of the republished editon, or from some other edition? All that is needed is to clarify the edition and then I will add this view to that given by Martin-Dubost, which specifically states that he funded a project to do it as opposed to writing it all himself. The English word "authored" may broadly mean "arranged to be written" and it is not surprising that in the introduction full credit would be given to him regardless of whether he had help. Here is the quote we are working on:

2. The first page, the author states thus: May the work sri tattvanidi, which is illustrated and contains secrets of mantras and which is authored by king sri krishna raja, be written without any abstacle. Salutation to Lord ganapati and goddess chamundambika... Hence we cannot today doubt the authorship and say it was done at his command !

Buddhipriya 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Position of pictures on page

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

[edit] Reliable sources for the translations

It is wonderful that you are able to provide your own transcription of the text with your translation. Please continue doing so. However in Wikipedia we must follow WP:RS and give references to anything we put here. There have been some different translations of these verses printed in books about Ganesha, and as we go I will give what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source for each verse. These quotations will probably be different from what you are giving. Please watch for how they differ and let's see if we can identify any ways in which your translation spots errors. Please do not change any of the text as given by other translators. In Wikipedia it does not matter if what the quote says is right, it just needs to be an accurate statement of what that reliable souce said. If there are conflicts between reliable sources these can both be quoted. Providing your own translation may be challenged as WP:OR so we need to figure out how to include the information in a way that uses reliable sources.

See WP:RS#Language for policy on use of the original text. It is good to include the actual source language as you are doing. Buddhipriya 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am having difficulty keeping track of which translations you are providing, since there is another informal version already there. As you add your translations would you place note yourself as the source, so I can then work on them as new material more easily? I will continue to add published translations for comparisons. Buddhipriya 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry i was busy. If you feel i need not add translations as i see them, i will add only the kannada text

Rajachandra 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Use of IAST

I can see that the present article has been carefully worked on to use the older ASCII transliteration methods in an attempt to preserve a correct romanization of the Indic script, which was a good intention. The standard romanization method used for articles in the Hinduism project is IAST rather than the ASCII methods used to some extent in the article. I feel that it would be good for the article to standardize the use of IAST for that reason. An exception is that for words which have common English equivalents such as Ganapati, Shiva, or Vishnu, the common simple English romanization is preferred since this is an English-language Wiki. When IAST is used as the romanization it should be enclosed within Template:IAST which helps ensure correct rendering on web browsers and helps bots identify pages that contain Indic text. The IAST tag in use looks like this: {{IAST|Mahāganapati}} While Indic scripts such as Devanagari do not contain the idea of capitalization, the IAST specifications include capital letters as an accomodation for English readers. Hence proper names are generally capitalized as that is the custom in English.

For a summary of the IAST issues as I see them, please check User:Buddhipriya/IASTUsage and feel free to add any points there that you think pertain to this issue. That essay is a collection of threads and links related to romanization of Indic scripts. Buddhipriya 19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt IAST is a preferred method for articles on Hinduism. But i have used ASCII method as i have based it on baraha a free transliteration software which also helps other Indian diaspora to easily convert what is posted here to some of the languages listed under baraha including sanskrit etc. It is also easy for me verify the kannada text as in the paintings. You are free to change if you feel otherwise.

Rajachandra 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The ASCII methods certainly have their place, and for some people who use transliteration software of the type you mention it is convenient. However it is difficult for English readers who are not familiar with it because the system of repetition of letters and internal capitalization violates English norms. The IAST system presents different problems with legibility related to the extra diacritical marks, but at least the system of capitalization can optionally be used to normalize to English usage for things like proper names. There are a couple of other sources for the Kannada text in IAST and Devanagari transliteration, so as you continue to provide your transliteration we can compare it with some of the published versions and see if there are any points where they vary. In doing this it can be normalized to IAST gradually. Buddhipriya 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of standard reference sections

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

[edit] Questions regarding citations

In setting up the standard reference sections I was unclear if there are two books or one book cited in this note. Can you please check reference data and compare with the standardized templates for books that I have tried to extract from it? My guesses may be wrong, so please verify. Here is the original citation:

Annals of the Mysore Royal Family , Part II, Government Branch Press, Mysore, 1922, page:176; mummaDi kRuShNarAja oDeyaru - oMdu cAriTrika adhyana ( Mummadi Krsihnaraja Wodeyar- a Historic Study) by Dr. R.Gopal & Dr. S.Narendra Prasad, published by Directorate of Archeology and Museums, Hospet- Karnataka-India in 2004 @page=104 ^ mummaDi kRuShNarAja oDeyaru - oMdu cAriTrika adhyana by Dr. R.Gopal & Dr. S.Narendra Prasad,@page=92-94

Here are the two (?) books which may be referred to, using book templates:

(1922) Annals of the Mysore Royal Family , Part II. Mysore: Government Branch Press.

Gopal, R.; Prasad, S. Narendra (2004). mummaDi kRuShNarAja oDeyaru - oMdu cAriTrika adhyana ( Mummadi Krsihnaraja Wodeyar- a Historic Study). Karnataka: Directorate of Archeology and Museums.

Is there an author for the first item?

For this one, is there an author?

Sri Mummadi Krsihnaraja Wodeyar's 'Sritattvanidhi', Volume-1;shakti nidhi @ pages xviii-xxiv: by Oriental research Institute, University of Mysore, 1997

I have tried to standardize this to the template as follows:

Wodeyar, Mummadi Krsihnaraja (1997). Sritattvanidhi. Oriental Research Institute, University of Mysore.

Buddhipriya 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Annals 1 & 11 were edited by Mr. B.Ramakrishna Row - Palace Controller, as per orders of the then Maharaja Krishna Raja Wadiyar IV based on various sources available in the Palace.

As for as ORI books they also give credit to KRW III : Sri Mummadi Krsihna Raja Wodeyar's Srittatvanidhi - Vol I: Shakti nidhi... Chief Editors name is mentioned in each volume . For Vol I, credit has been taken by the then VC himself ( Prof. M.Madaiah) and Editor was Dr.H.P. Devaki, Director, ORI; Vol II - Chief Editor Dr. K.V. Ramesh, Hon Director, ORI, Vol III ditto. Rajachandra 18:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with image licensing

Another editor has identified a problem with the documentation for the images that have been uploaded, noting that they lack exact source information. Unless this problem is corrected, the images could be subject to deletion. The problem should be easy to fix by adding text such as "Scan of page from Sritattvanidhi, originally published in 18??" to each of the image pages. Note that the issue here is which publication the scans are actually from. Are they from the orignal copies of the work, which would date to some publication date in 18??, or are they from a reproduction of later date? The complete citation data for the work from which they were scanned is needed. Buddhipriya 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sritattvanidhi was never published in the modern sense of the word during the life time of the Author - Maharaja Mummudi Krishna Raja Wadiyar. It is said there were more than one hand bound identical - hand written & painted - compilation. How many were there ? No authoritative information is available. But officially theer are two copies today - one with ORI and one with Sri. Srikanata Datta Narasimha Raja Wadiyar. Even the copy with ORI is said have been gifted to them by a descendant of the Author from a un-recognized branch. May be it is for this reason ORI itself does not claim any copyright in its publication. What ever i have posted here is a spruced up and digitally modified from the scanned picture. If you still have any doubts kindly let me know. sorry i was busy and had not logged on to wiki for a long time

Rajachandra 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We are just trying to get citation data on file for the images, and I am not questioning them. But I am still not clear where the images were scanned from. Were they scanned from the originals directly? Or from a reproduction of the originals? If from a reproduction of the originals, what is the citation for that reproduction? We need to clarify where the pictures were when they were scanned. Buddhipriya 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to convert to IAST

Another editor removed the non-IAST transliteration, which I think was unfortunate. But as I have previously said, I agree that we should convert the romanization method to IAST, which is the standard academic method. This will facilitate comparison of the verses with the published versions elsewhere. I will work on this conversion gradually. I also do not support the use of tables, because the coding of them is very hard to maintain. One error in a line and the entire article is thrown off. So I think it would be much easier to keep the article stable if we stick to the present method of linear material. Buddhipriya 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never edited this article, but personally (as a reader) I liked the table formated version to be much better than the one with 32 subsections. I don't think maintenance (which is more of a concern for editors rather than the targeted readers) should be the overriding principle determining the use of tables, especially if an editor is willing to format the data. After all sports articles (see Category:Cricket, Category:Tennis etc) use tables regularly without any problems and unlike this article, those tables even need to be updated regularly. Some wikipedia articles even use pretty advanced formatting (see Periodic table (large version) or List of Harry Potter films cast members). Of course tables should be avoided when they are not suitable to present all the information that one intends to include in an article ... is that a concern here ? Abecedare 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On another topic, the text, "Translation of the meditation verse provided by a Wikipedian:" is unsuitable and should be avoided. See WP:SELF. Abecedare 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor who made this change also removed all of the text, which I feel is a significant feature. I do not see how to fall back to the text without eliminating the table. Manually this will be a lot of work to try to restore a text-based version unless we fall back, and perhaps add a table after it is stable. I also think that a case could be made for moving the text to Wikisource, as it is very significant for the study of these forms. It is simple Sanskrit, and conversion to IAST is not difficult. Use of the tables is slightly more complex here because the normal metrical separator character ( | ) is used frequently in the text. I would prefer to restore the old text, get it into IAST, and then consider a "final format" which may use a table even though I dislike them. Use of the table also makes it more difficult for a user to cut and past the material into a word processor, which is a function more likely to be relevant if it is moved to Wikisource. It is unfortunate that the editor did not ask if conversion to a table would be desired before doing it. I agree that the translation by a Wikipedian (the person who uploaded the images and text) should be removed eventually. A problem is that without the Sanskrit remaining, the variations in published translations are hard to verify against one another as some are only in English. The value added by the user who made the translation was the ability to read the script and transform it to one of the older romanization methods. Given all this, what do you think is the best thing to do now? I just saved a User:Buddhipriya/Sritattvanidhi of the article with the IAST so if necessary we can clean it up there. Buddhipriya 03:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I take a stab at it for the next half hour or so ? Abecedare 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I wasn't referring to the translation itself in the above comment although that should ideally be substituted with published translations. The more immediate point is that the phrase provided by a Wikipedian is inappropriate as per WP:SELF - the mere absence of a citation indicates that the translation is provide by an "anonymous" source, and the fact that the source edits on wikipedia (i.e. is a wikipedian) is of no encyclopedic concern. Does that explanation make sense ? Abecedare 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your explanations invariably make sense. By all means, take some time with the article and I will then try to work within the structure you put in place. Buddhipriya 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I will just be experimenting, and not necessarily putting a "structure in place" :-)

I'll use the IN USE template to avoid conflicts and will remove it once I'm done/bored. Thanks. Abecedare 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I have finished editing the article for now, basing the formatting on Redtigerxyz's version and the text on this version. As far as I see the main work required in the "32 forms" part of the article is as follows:

Converting the Kannada text to IAST and (if possible finding references for this text)
Finding references for the English translation. Current there are two versions of translations for some verses; hopefully one we have citations, we need to include only one. Right ?

Buddhipriya, please see if the new formatting is something you are comfortable working with in making the IAST edits etc. If not, feel free to revert to the all-text version to make your edits. We will always have the current version in the article history to look up the formatting from anytime in the future that we may need it. Cheers and happy editing! Abecedare 05:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work on this. I will see if I can convert the ASCII romanization to IAST without creating structural problems. While I personally do not care for table formats, I can see that others do like them, so trying to improve my ability to work with these structures is the best action. My concern is that in the long term these structures are very error prone, but perhaps that will not be the case here. Some details:

The | solution for the metrical breaks is an interesting approach. I guess we can try it, or perhaps a substitute character can work. But it would be good to see if we can use the correct mark, as you have done.
Regarding the translations, perhaps each form should be sourced independently, because the problem is variation in the English renderings in different sources. What is valuable about having the romanization of the Kannada script is that it gives an independent version of it that that can be compared with other sourced versions. I think I have already spotted some variations. One of the translations in the article now is the Chinmayananda version, which clearly has some mis-matches between the text and the line drawings, which was just the subject of discussion on Ganesha. In fact-checking that issue I noticed some serious variations in the other sources, so I will go through image by image and see what I can find. I do not want to cut the Wikipedian version yet because it is actually pretty good and will be helfpul to me as I compare the sources.
In line with the fact that the Sritattvanidhi is an iconographical standard, there may be some issues that are worth noting regarding iconographic themes in these images. I am unsure if it is a good idea to go into documentation on the role that some of the attributes play as general symbols of Ganesha. Some of this came up in the detailed comments I made on the images being proposed for the Ganesha article. This could be a long term goal for expansion if it makes any sense to do so.

Buddhipriya 06:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to do my first test edit and immediately missed the previous "quick pick" list of the forms that was at the top of the images. Currently there is just one big table. Would it be OK to at least put each image into a separate section so you could jump to it and have an edit function just operate on that one image? Currently the entire table will be destroyed if an editor makes an error in one image. With sections for the images, one section can be edited independently. I will set up the first image that way just to show what I mean. Feel free to revert it if you do not like it. Buddhipriya 06:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to implement the subtable, but could not do it. I'm afraid my mastery of the table coding is the problem. I will try to work with the structure as it is now. Buddhipriya 06:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear of the problems being caused by the formatting. Here are some suggestions/tips:

As long as you don't introduce/delete symbols such as "|" (without the "nowiki" tags) the table format should be stable.
I have added demarcations in the form of commented horizontal lines separating each of the 32 forms, so that it is at least easy to visually spot the section of interest while editing - even though there are no separate edit buttons available.
Use preview! :-)
Here is the help page for tables, although it makes for tedious reading.
You can try writing up the IAST for the verses on a subpage, and then the text can be cut-n-patsed into the table. At least that way no labor will be lost.

Let me know if I can be of any help or if you have any specific questions. Abecedare 06:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just tried a test in which I moved one of the verses to a word processor where I could work with it more easily, and that was not too bad. They say that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks but I do not agree with that proverb. I will keep at it. I just moved one line which was a general comment to the table heading, which gave me a feeling of accomplishment. :) Having done two verses I have already seen some corruption in the Sanskrit, so probably at least two passes are needed, one to just IASTify what is there, and another to rectify it. This could take a couple of weeks at the rate I am going, but I will get it done eventually, unless someone reverts all of it. Buddhipriya 06:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard for representation of nasals

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

[edit] Why do we need the slokas???

Remember this is not a detailed book on "Slokas in Sritattvanidhi about Ganesha and their English Translations", but an arictle about Sritattvanidhi in wikipedia. I think all slokas in Kannada should be removed, so long a translation in English is given. I mean a translation just one. The difference in Mudgala Purana version should be noted. The whole verse need not be translated again.

Also i want to point out this is an article about Sritattvanidhi and not only the 32 forms of Ganesha. Sritattvanidhi article in wikipedia is supposed to be an introduction about the book and its matter (not only on Ganesha).--Redtigerxyz 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also i would like to use the same argument that user Buddhipriya 07:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) used in Ganesha article discussion(topic Gajānana):-

"I am not sure that it is wise to keep adding all of these Sanskrit(and Kannada) names(terms), as they are likely to only confuse and perhaps annoy the English-speaking reader. I think the article has too many Sanskrit terms in it now."

--Redtigerxyz 10:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your removal of the Sanskrit text, which is part of the images. Documentation of these verses is a significant part of documentation of what the Sritattvanidhi says about the images. The fact that you are unable to read the Sanskrit does not justify its removal. Since I already reverted the removal of the Sanskrit once, I will revert it again, because I try to practice a one-revert policy for this type of situation. I would like to note that the other editor does not follow a similar policy, and so third party will need to intervene if this cycle of revert warring is to be broken. Another approach would be to move the Sanskrit text to Wikisource and clean it up there, or create another article specifically on the thirty-two meditation forms, which are are highly noteworthy because they are given again and again in multiple places in the Ganapatya literature. To prevent edit warring I will discontinue work on this article until some consensus has emerged with input from other editors. Buddhipriya 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am repeating- this is an article about Sritattvanidhi and not only the 32 forms of Ganesha. Also note not a single Sanskrit verse is quoted in the Ganesha article too.

Also even if an independent article on "32 Forms of Ganesha" is created, i would still object quoting the Kannada(which has some words fom Sanskrit, not all) verses whose English translations are given. Also the wikipedia article, is supposed to be an introduction to a topic. It may "annoy the English-speaking reader" who never has come across Kannada.--Redtigerxyz 09:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your views. In the future, you may wish to consider discussing such large structural changes in advance before making them. I was also disappointed to see that with no prior discussion you reverted all of the work done by another editor in an attempt to work gradually toward a mutually satisfactory approach. I have suggested two alternative approaches to dealing with this material. We still have not heard from the editor who did all of the work of uploading the images and adding the transcription of the Kannada, which in my opinion was of great value as it is a description of the actual surface of the image and important for historical reasons. The text of the Sanskrit is given in Devanagari in two texts which I have at hand (Chinmayananda; Rao) and English translations or discussions of the verses is in some other sources at hand. As I said, I try to follow a one-revert rule in these matters in order to prevent triggering an edit war. Buddhipriya 20:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on Buddhipriya's page: I just saw the recent bouts of reversions on this article. I am in general neutral on (if not mildly opposed to) including extensive non-English quotes in wikipedia article, but I do wish the issues are discussed calmly on talk pages to bring out the pros-and-cons in each specific instance; especially when good-faith, experienced editors (and not drive-by vandals) are involved.
There are no copyright/BLP issues involved with either versions of the article (with or without the Kannada text) so I don't think there is any need to immediately revert from one version to another. So lets try to discuss the issue here on the talk page and arrive at a consensus. Regards. Abecedare 21:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is sheer vandalism. I took many late nights for me to read the original texts and transliterate them. One cannot understand the logic . Who is imposing these limitation ? When wiki has many language versions, and readers across the globe, how can you be self centric. Tomorrow you may well say why you need pictures and may well delete them. These texts are part and parcel of the original pictures as the author intended it that way . The meanings which are left in these columns are neither accurate nor authentic translations of the original texts. After all the paintings are based on the description in mudgala purana ( text). I am sorry i may be a bit harsh, but i am outraged.

As for as the title of sritattvanidhi to this thread, it is misnomer, i agree. It is impossible to reproduce something like sritattvanidhi in this thread. I do not think it was the intentions of the author of this thread. But then i did not name it, so do not know the reasons. It could be like Prof . S.K.Rama Chandra Rao naming his book, thought it was from some other work of the Maharaja. May be name is more well known and synonymous with the works of the Maharaja.

I accidentally found the thread and set about building them over many months and as a matter of fact, i was not finished with my work yet as i was busy . Though i never objected to comments and deletions and corrections ealier by Budhipriya, as it was within known editing norms. Now it is more like a bull in a chinashop.

Now i do not feel the urge to spend any time on wiki, instead it is better to have a blog and write what you want and when you want. sorry folks.

Rajachandra 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand your feelings, and I agree that the removal of your work with no prior discussion is difficult to understand. I regret that you feel like leaving Wikipedia due to this incident. I had a smilar reaction but have tried to act within the constraints of a self-imposed limit making reversions in order to avoid edit wars. Your statement that "These texts are part and parcel of the original pictures as the author intended it that way" is absolutely true. I see two possible alternatives that could result in the preservation of this work while at the same not directly triggering an edit war with the editor who has acted unilaterally to remove the materials. One would be to move the textual material to Wikisource, and work collaboratively to get a well-sourced version of the text there. However the text and images are, as you say, intended to go together. Creation of an article just for the 32 meditation forms may be a way to address the objection that we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Ganesha materials in the general article on the Sritattvanidhi, which does include a much more broad range of materials. I would enjoy working on such an article, and regret the potential loss of a valued editor. Currently there are two editors who feel that the verses should remain in the article (Rajachandra and Buddhipriya), one who feels that they should be removed (Redtigerxyz), and one who is on the fence (Abcedare). There is no consensus for removal of the verses. I feel that they should be restored to the article, but I am unwilling to participate in an edit war over this. Unless the editor who has removed the material shows some evidence of being willing to abide by consensus and respect the process of dialog, there is no hope for stability on the article. Buddhipriya 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I have rolled back to Buddhipriya's version (Revision as of 06:46, July 18, 2007). Redtiger's removal of shlokas is totally out of line and borders on vandalism. Shlokas are a part and parcel of this work and transliterations are used routinely on several articles (see Jana Gana mana, vande mataram, sare jahanse achcha) etc.,. If you want to change the policy and evolve a MoS for India related articles, go to WP:IN talk page and work it out with the community there. Until then, hold your peace. And btw, there may have been some valid good faith edits that may have been undone in this rollback, but I will examine it and bring them back over the next couple of days. Sarvagnya 08:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to the comparision of Jana Gana mana, vande mataram, sare jahanse achcha to the slokas as they are just National songs, a nation knows. Also they are Maximum 20 liners.

This sloka issue deals with Hinduism then with India. So I have started a discussoion at the Wikiproject Hinduism talk page.--Redtigerxyz 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'they are just national songs... a nation knows..'? And your issue doesnt have to do with either Hinduism or India. It has to do with MoS and for all practical purposes, Hinduism-related topics can be safely assumed to be the business of the India workgroup. So take your MoS issues there. There's a larger audience there and will respond to your concerns. I'm afraid the Hinduism noticeboard isnt the place to take this to. Sarvagnya 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Sarvagnya's action in restoring the material, I personally do not plan to make any further edits to this article unless there is a stabilization of this conflict situation. Hopefully the editor who posted the material originally will return to comment, but we may have lost him. Regarding the fact that material is not in IAST, I had begun converting the material to IAST when the text was summarily removed. In my previous comments I have outlined other alternatives for how this material can be handled, and so will not repeat previous remarks here. Buddhipriya 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that while IAST transliterations are welcome, it is not mandatory. Also not being in IAST is not at all a reason to vandalise content. I encourage you to continue with your IAST conversion at your own pace. I will try to add a Kannada transliteration sometime. Sarvagnya 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, here is my 2c:

In general I share redtigerxyz's view, that providing both translation and transliteration of slokas is perhaps redundant and of limited use, especially for articles which have length concerns, and in cases where the original text and transliterations can be easily found in a published text, cited in the reference.
However in this article the 32 images and the accompanying slokas are (at least currently), central to the content, and it is thus useful to provide the transliterations/translations, especially since length is not an issue.
I agree with Redtigerxyz that the Kannada text/trasliteraion will be understandable and/or of interest to only a fraction of the readership - but that is true for a large percentage of wikipedia pages and is never a reason to delete relevant content. The only reason I can think of for deleting the slokas would be if their presence is making the page unreadably lengthy/dense, but IMO that is not the case.
If and when this page expands significantly to include more content, "about the book and its matter (not only on Ganesha)", we can easily move the slokas themselves to an sub-article. In the meantime, I don't see what is gained by removing verifiable content that is of great use to some readers, and not a significant impediment to others, especially since Rajachandra has already made the effort to provide the Kannada-English romanization, and Buddhipriya has volunteered to convert it to IAST.

Abecedare 23:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussoion at the WP:IN too as there have no comments on Wikiproject Hinduism. Please participate in the discussion there--Redtigerxyz 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note #2

My initial general comment 14 August 2007 about putting slokas, translations, and transliterations on a subpage was placed here in error and has been moved by me, slightly revised, over to the WP Hindu talk page. Sorry for the confusion & inconvenience. -- Lisasmall | Talk 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are quite reasonable, but do not directly address the key dispute, which is that the article was in the process of being constructed, with translations to be added, when all of the key material was unilaterally cut by Redtigerxyz despite objections. When that forced content removal took place the effort to work on the translations stopped, and the editor who uploaded the images and was working on the source text said he was leaving Wikipedia. I previously suggested having an article just for the thirty-two forms, but that got no positive reaction. At this point I have no interest in the effort as it is clear that the attack on the content continues, so there is little point in working on it. The material that was removed is of considerable value to Ganapatya and if time had been allowed to develop it, it would have made a good article. Buddhipriya 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Sarvagnya's new contribution which i think is a clever solution to the UNDUE problem. The problem now is only the referencing and IASTing of verses which is part of 32 forms.--Redtigerxyz 12:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that at this point you are suspending your attempts to remove the content entirely? We need some clear sense of your position, otherwise work on this article is a waste of time. I notice that you have added references to Subramuniyaswami, an unreliable source that has been rejected for use as a WP:RS when you previously attempted to cite him on Ganesha. His position as a WP:FRINGE figure was discussed in some detail at that time, but you have chosen to put him forward here despite the fact that previous consensus was to not rely on him. I think all of the citations to him should be expunged. His book contains no scholarly citations whatsoever. Buddhipriya 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point, adding IAST transliterations isnt really that much of a priority. The way I look at it, we should add more content pertaining to the other chapters in the work. At the moment, we only have info about the "Shivanidhi" chapter (dealing with the 32 forms of Ganesha). We should add more info and once we have enough bulk there, we can start hiving off each of those 'chapters' as its own dedicated article. At that point, we will retain just a summary of each of those articles in this one.

I request User:Rajachandra to please add more information if he has it. Infact, I am not so bothered about references either at this point. We know nonsense when we see it and nobody is adding any 'nonsense' here. So I request Redtiger not to nitpick with tags and disrupt good faith editing here. Refs, IAST, style, everything will be added in due course.. so stop breathing down people's necks. It is not like we've nommed this for FA or GA status. Come and nitpick all you want if and when we put this up for FA or GA. Until then, hold your peace. Sarvagnya 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, everyone, I'm not part of the 32 slokas dispute. I'm a complete stranger to the history of contention here, and am just giving my viewpoint on what I think a stranger or novice to Hinduism would find useful and understandable when looking up a Hindu deity's article for the first time. Good luck to you all on coming to a peaceful, constructive, easily-understood solution; wish I could be of more help, other than providing the "fresh eyes" perspective with which I began Note #2. -- Lisasmall 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sarvagnya, i didn't add the tag first. It was there for a long time. Please remove the tag when references are added. I am removing all Subramuniyaswami references.--Redtigerxyz 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the references to Subramuniyaswami. I will object strongly if there is further effort to use him as a WP:RS. I am in general agreement with the strategy that Sarvagnya suggests, namely to try to get the general article improved first, and then work on the detailed sections individually. Unfortunately the only editor who had access to the source text directly still has not resumed discussion here and thus our prime contributor has been driven off. I hope he will return. Since most of the citations that I have on this work appear in Ganapatya context, I do not have much new to add on the work in general. I will try to find more general material if possible. Buddhipriya 08:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)