Talk:Ganesha

Hala text
My edits (which were anonymous, since I had logged in ) with references to Ganesha's worship in Hala's Gaha Sattasayi were removed citing - "No OR and this work is from 5th century" by Ms Sarah Welch. While the way it was written my have meant OR, by no means the work Gaha Sattasayi is dated to 5th century. Even Ingenpedia articles are dating it to 1st century CE. Ramakriya (talk) Ramakriya

Please provide an RS with page number which states that the Hala text is from 1st century CE and supports what you claim. Further, how does the source published by Kavyamala in 1933 qualify as IN:RS / IN:HISTRS? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ramakriya: You may want to read Poems on Life and Love in Ancient India: Hala's Sattasai by Peter Khoroche and Herman Tieken (State Univ of New York Press, 2009) on issues with the author and dating of this text. Neither does this more recent publication confirm what you allege. Please provide a quote if you can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a quote that leads you to believe that "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)" is supported by Basak edited text The Prakrit Gatha Saptasati? The source must interpret / conclude this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of and read Peter Khoroche's text. It is not any more definitive than many other texts. The whole exercise is based on his assertion that the Gatha Saptashati has elements of Kamasutra. No further details are given. So it is at best a thought of that particular author. If Hala's date is to be debated, it should be done on the the entry about Hala or Gatha Saptashati. Even the Ingenpedia page about Gatha Saptashati dates the work to 200 BC to 200 CE. Where did you come up with your "This work of Deccan is from the 5th century"?

Here are couple other references that date Hala and the work to 1st/2nd CE - Much earlier than the arbitrary 5th century date you mentioned.

1) Grow Long Blessed Night Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19051273301. Page 13. Quote "However, it is traditionally and generally believed that these verses were collected by one man, Hala, a king of the Satavahana dynasty who wuled from 20 to 24 CE". End quote.

2) The Absent Traveler, Ravi Dayal Press ISBN -0-86311-256-3. In the Translator's note: Quote "The Gatha Saptashati, one of the earliest anthologies of Indian poetry to have survived, was compiled by a Satavahana king, perhaps Hala, around the second century AD. It if fair to assume, however, that some of it's verses go back to an even earlier period" End quote. Ramakriya (talk)ramakriya


 * Ingenpedia articles are not reliable sources. You misunderstood and probably missed the discussion in Khoroche and Tieken about problems dating this text, and the likely date range. Why do you believe that 'Ravi Dayal Press" is a reputed publisher with a peer review process to be IN:RS? The Selby source published by Oxford Univ Press is RS, but what you quote merely states what the traditional/general belief is. Don't ignore the sentences before that quote and the "however" part. On this being possibly a 5th century text, see fourth para in this. Most importantly, none of these sources are concluding that Ganesha was worshipped in the 1st century. Where does the source such as Selby state so? Please provide a quote from a RS about "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You must understand none of these translators were writing about Ganesha worship specifically. The verse in question does talk about Ganesha idol being worshipped. And I have read the however part and everything around it in the text you mention. There are even some authors who have claimed a 10th CE. By the way why do you assume Ravi Dayal Press is not reputed? (I am not a great fan of that specific translation, but that does not matter) - I am just pointing your preconceived notions.


 * Verse 4.72 of Sattasayi reads:


 * "I bow down now before the same idol of Ganapati, which was placed ... " etc - Translation by R G Basak


 * This is more than an indication of Ganapati idols being worshipped. As far as the date, I have shown Peter Koroche gives no better reasoning for his date than the traditional dates. Ramakriya (talk)ramakriya


 * And how do you come to conclusion that I "misunderstood and probably missed the discussion in Khoroche and Tieken about problems dating this text"? Please stop assuming things. Not necessary. You may have edited more articles on Ingenpedia, and may be a moderator of some sort (I can not undo your edits automatically, and have to manually edit every time) -but that does not mean you can make whatever claims about others' reading or comprehension skills. Thank you. Ramakriya (talk)ramakriya


 * Rig Veda (c. 1500 and 1200 BC ) begins with invocation of Lord Ganesha.  Prodigyhk (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Read Gobhila Grihya Sutra of the Sama Veda. Also confirms Ganesha worship at least from first century CE. http://www.hinduonline.co/vedicreserve/kalpa/grihya/gobhila_grihya_sutram.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mntzr (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

All three of you: Welcome to wikipedia and this article. Please read IN:OR guideline and stop inserting original research. The scholarly source must interpret the primary source and state the conclusion, not you. Vedic texts, shastras, sutras, gathas etc manuscripts that have survived are not ancient originals; rather, as old Palm-leaf manuscripts and similar versions decayed, they were copied again. The scribes added, changed things, deleted poems and added new ones as Khoroche and Tieken source published by State University of New York Press states in the case of Gaha Sattasai. The manuscripts of these texts exist in several versions, again something Khoroche and Tieken source explains for Gaha Sattasai on pages 1, 8-10. The headers and colophons in the different manuscripts also vary. Unless a source states that Gaha Sattasai poem with Ganapati is part of the critical edition and can be dated to the 1st century, we can't use wikipedia voice to allege it is. We can't look at an on-line version of some text on hinduonline.com etc and assume it must be the original version! Scholarship must do so. You must provide a source that concludes, "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)" or something similar. This pushing the Ganesha date to an earlier period in the lead based on OR and interpreting a primary text, despite the summary from secondary and tertiary sources in the main article is also problematic. Unfortunately, your use of questionable websites and non-RS etc above to do so comes across as OR and POV-pushing. We need to follow IN:LEAD and use quality, non-eccentric sources given this is a GA article. ,, would one of you please clarify our policy on this, particularly the interpretation of primary texts and OR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ramakriya: Please see IN:RS guidelines on what sort of publishing houses and peer review process are considered reliable in wikipedia. You cite a Ravi Dayal Publisher publication, but have not provided any evidence that this outfit has a peer review process. I checked, and I am unable to confirm. If you provide a University-related press or other reputable publishers, I will accept such an alternate source. Please quit this "pointing your preconceived notions" lectures as it is not constructive. I have already provided two sources that place the Gaha Sattasai in 5th and 3rd to 7th century. Khoroche and Tieken mention dating problems with specific poems, and poems were replaced / inserted into the text later. Further, nothing in the text is concluding that "There are indications to show Ganesha worship was in practice during the early years of the common era (1st Century CE)". That is your original research. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Gaha Sattasai shows clear signs of Gupta period interpolations. See D. C. Sircar's Ancient Malwa And The Vikramaditya Tradition (1969), p. 114. Or look at the reference you have cited: Grow Long, Blessed Night (p. 82) mentions the accretions made to the core text of Gaha Sattasai in as late as the 5th century. A small part of the text may have been composed by Hāla, but it was definitely expanded during the Gupta period.
 * So, if a reference states that Ganesha is mentioned in Gaha Sattasai, that cannot be considered as a proof that Ganesha was worshipped during Hāla's lifetime. The portion mentioning Ganesha may be a Gupta-era interpolation. You need to find a source that explicitly supports the assertion that "Ganesha's mention in Gaha Sattasai proves that Ganesha was worshipped in the 1st century CE.
 * and Colombotelegraph.com and hinduonline.co are not acceptable sources for such claims either. Have a look at IN:RS. scutcheon &#124; talk 23:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * scutcheon the article given to guide to Ms Sarah Welch and any other regular editor for this page. If agree with that information, we can find better quality citations. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Correction: This is a featured article of wikipedia. Ramakriya/etc: please no more edit warring, as our content guidelines for FA-quality articles are more stringent than GA-quality. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: To all involved editors: (1) Ingenpedia relies on scholarly sources as far as possible. Newspapers are only used for current events where no scholarly sources may be available. Newspapers should never be used to override scholarly sources. (2) IN:PRIMARY sources such as historical texts, religious texts etc., cannot be interpreted by us. They have to be interpreted by IN:SECONDARY sources (again scholarly sources taking priority), and we can only summarise what the SECONDARY sources say. Interpreting PRIMARY sources directly constitutes original research. Enjoy editing! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You make this statement - "Unfortunately, your use of questionable websites and non-RS etc above to do so comes across as OR and POV-pushing" - But your references, mostly from a single source, not considering any other POVs is not POV-pushing?


 * I also saw your recent flood of updates on the Gaha Sattasayi page. A majority (10/16) of the references go back to a single source of Peter and Herman, and this particular translation has the dubious distinction of not having a single Samskrta or Prakrta or Indian language edition of Gaha Sattasayi in it's bibliography. So much for providing a NPOV and considering other scholarly opinions. You don't have to reiterate Ram Dayal is not reviewed and Kavyamala is not peer reviewed etc. I have heard it all.


 * All other editors on the page: Thanks, and I won't worry about editing any article on Ingenpedia knowing the type of moderation here, which makes Wiki neither free or open. I needed to make this final comment before I exited off this thread 192.55.54.39 (talk)ramakriya


 * Ramakriya: No, it is not a single source at all, but multiple scholarly sources provided by not just me! You misrepresent or misread or misunderstand, just wrong either way. You have failed to provide a reliable source for alternate POVs despite our repeated requests. Hindu POV pushing or anti-Hindu POV pushing websites, and other unreliable / questionable sources with no peer review, are not acceptable on wikipedia. We need to stick to quality scholarship as and when they become available. Bye, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The book cited in this edit, doesn't seem to be by someone whose area of expertise is history or religion, not to mention that the citation is incomplete. utcursch &#124; talk 02:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Upanishads
Regarding this edit, do you have a reference that Ganesha is mentioned in pre-Gupta Upanishads? The Ganapati Atharvashirsa is dated to the 16th century, and as the references in that article's History section state, the word "Ganapati" in the Rigveda may be a common noun meaning "leader of the multitudes", not the name of a specific deity. utcursch &#124; talk 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ganesha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217044207/http://ganapati.club.fr/anglais/tslesganesheng.html to http://ganapati.club.fr/anglais/tslesganesheng.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210051104/http://ganapati.club.fr/anglais/indexe.html to http://ganapati.club.fr/anglais/indexe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ganesha
I have heard it said that Ganesh does have 108 names in Hinduism. This could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * see Ganesha Sahasranama (already discussed in the article). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Vinayak
I reverted an edit to Vinayak, a longstanding redirect to Ganesha. , the editor who made the change asserts that "vinayak doesn't means ganesh". Some expert eyeballs would be appreciated. Cabayi (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)