Talk:Consorts of Ganesha

See also

I was about to add consorts, but don't know if that can be linked.BalanceRestored 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is present in the singular form consort, not plural, if that was what you're wondering. It may be better to link consort in the lead instead of adding it in the See Also section. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Article review against content in Ganesha

On Ganesha there has been a suggestion to reduce overlapping content there related to the consorts. In order to systematically check if all of the sourced content on Ganesha is also found here, I am going to compare and merge the two articles side by side via a document comparison tool in my word processor. In doing this I plan to add any additional references here or wording improvements that may have been made in Ganesha that never were replicated here. The purpose of this review will be to ensure that this article contains all of the previously-sourced material in both articles prior to possiblly cutting some of it from Ganesha if it is duplicative of the final combined product. In doing this I do not plan to add anything that does already exist in one or another of the two articles. However if I find sourcing issues, I will identify them. I believe that this will be a non-controversial series of edits, but on Wikipedia one can never be sure of that. In doing this merge I would also like to normalize the reference formats through use of the Citation and Harvnb templates. Is there any objection to that change to the reference system itself? Buddhipriya 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I suggest Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi section in Consorts article be split in two : Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi; and Intrepetations of relationships as in Ganesha article. Also i suggest that Santoshi Ma info be merged in Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi section as Santoshi is not consort of Ganesha --Redtigerxyz 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the idea of having a "two wives" variant (which may Buddhi plus either Siddhi or Riddhi) as in the Ganesha article is logical, as that configuration is a basic one. The interpretations of relationships section I have yet to go over using the merge tool I am using, but it seems reasonable. The material on Santoshi Ma needs to be kept as a separate section as it represents a distinct variant and raises additional issues about the modern evolution of these ideas. I am about a third of the way through the line-by-line comparison of this with the Ganesha article and it is slow going because I am also seeing various citation issues as I go. The Ganesha article had much more refinement, while this is still using some older methods of sourcing. If you can give me a few more days before we do any reorganziation of this article it will help me a great deal, because the comparison I am doing is via versions as of when I started this review. The word processor has produced a list of specific lines to check, and I am going through them one by one. Buddhipriya 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have implemented the division for interpretations of relationships as you suggested, and I tried an experiment in which the Santoshi Ma material is now a subsection under the Buddhi, Siddhi, and Riddhi section to try to address the point you have made regarding it. Do you think that arrangement will work? Buddhipriya 06:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have finished the line-by-line comparison against Ganesha, and the version of the Consorts of Ganesha that is in place now in my opinion uses the better language variants in cases where I found a difference. Note that Ganesha has had a lot of copyediting, more so than the Consorts article. At this point I will continue with citation cleanup, but I do not expect that will lead to many significant content changes. So personally at this point I would like editors to work on the lead and give opinions on whether or not we are ready to do removal of content from the Ganesha article. Buddhipriya 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work, Buddhipriya. I think the article looks much better now.--Redtigerxyz 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Need for sourcing the lead for use in Ganesha

I just noticed that in this article the lead is a summary of sourced material, but has few inline citations of its own. As part of the job of writing a very good lead here we need to plan for sourcing requirements when the lead is copied to Ganesha. Thus a few well-chosen citations can be applied in the lead to support the main points there. I will do this as part of the citation review I am doing. Buddhipriya 06:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

More generally regarding sourcing, in going over this I noticed that various statements do need better citations. I think everything in the article is true, which is why I have not removed things, but it will be helpful if other editors will continue to place fact tags on any statements that they feel are in particular need of support. By placing fact tags you will assist me in prioritizing the citation review, which may take a couple of weeks. I suggest that rather than removing content entirely, the fact tags be used, as that will make it easier for me to see the statements in context. Some of the material appears to be elaborations of ideas that may be sourced by the adjacent citations. Buddhipriya 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead should discuss

• Bachelor - discussed
• 2 Consorts - discussed
• Single Consorts including Shaktis - to modify --Redtigerxyz 11:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you would prefer not to mention the minor themes such as the Bengali variant in the lead. You have mentioned this various times. I feel that the lead should briefly summarize the main ideas of the article, and I agree with the list you have given above. However I do feel that a general remark about other minor themes, a minimum should be included. The single consorts category as you give it is an oversimplification. The traditions related to Lakshmi, for example, constitute an independent tradition in their own right, with distinct iconography that keys back to visual themes such as the spraying elephant motif. In any case where there is a clear pattern in the art, it is a sign that some specific ritual or mythic tradtion is present. Thus the lumping together of that sort of material with the single shakti is incorrect from the point of view of classification of iconography. In fact, the single shakti motif itself is quite distinct from the servant motifs, which generally involve a standing feminine figure or figures with either fans or whisks. If one were classifying the art, one would never place such a motif in the same category with a seated shakti, which represents a different tradition entirely. I agree that there is no need to mention every variant in the lead, but some general statement that the classification of variants is complex is appropriate. Buddhipriya 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There were come minor problems with the copy, but I have corrected them already.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   jackturner3 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lakshmi is described as wife of Vishnu only, definitely not the wife of Ganesha.

Theres a lot of confusion which is most obvious in this article, in regards to Lakshmi. Yes, some hindus have Lakshmi or Saraswati in posters or shrines next to Ganesha, but that does not mean they are his wives. In fact I have spoken to some Hindu people and they found this article to be very disgraceful, blasphemous, and false. Just look at this Quora page for clarification. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-Lord-Ganesha-and-Maa-Laxmiji. It clearly explains that Lakshmi has no marital relationship to him. If we let this wikipedia article to say false information, it is very discrediting and makes it look trashy. We should at least clarify in the Lakshmi and Saraswati Section that Lakshmi is in no way married to Ganesha, they simply are sometimes shown next to each other in a platonic way. We definitely can not present false information, especially when a lot of people might consider it "blasphemy" against there supreme deity, Lord Vishnu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeyel (talk • contribs) 00:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)