Talk:Iravan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The name

This page should be Iravan, as the original form in Sanskrit. Imc 07:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds right. I'll request it at WP:RM. --Musicpvm 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done by voice of all. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Info on publisher

Hiltebeitel utilizes a lot of primary source material published by Irattina Nayakar and Sons of Madras. They seem to be an excellent reliable source, but there's almost nothing about them on the internet. If anyone could provide reliably sourced material regarding this publisher and family, that would be appreciated. Kind of info wanted: date of establishment, specialisation (Sanskrit, Tamil, etc. lit.), address, whether they are still in business, if they have a new name, names of any editorial staff, any university or religious affiliations etc. Hindu Vivek Kendra might be able to help. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks under Worship

There could be spelling issues and hence the red links. Since this is a GA nomination, I thought we could clean this up a bit. Coimbatore District - Kuricci - is it Kurichi? The other places have not made it to Wikipedia from the Census loads by various bots? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the spellings: Koovagam was spelt as Kuvakkam by various scholars. Kuricci - could be Kurichi. We just need to confirm if a famous Aravan temple exists there. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cult"

I think this article, and all Hinduism articles that use the words "cult" or "sect", must be careful to clarify the terms — they often have negative connotations in the West, especially in Christianity, while they are merely value-free descriptions in Hinduism. For example, the OED and Merriam-Webster have the following definitions, among others:

• cult: (OED) "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister"
• cult: (MW) "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious"
• sect: (MW) "a dissenting religious body; especially: one that is heretical in the eyes of other members within the same communion"

Whereas what we actually mean is something like the following meanings:

• cult: (OED) "A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies."
• cult: (MW) "religious practice" / "a system of beliefs and ritual connected with the worship of a deity, a spirit, or a group of deities or spirits" / "the rites, ceremonies, and practices of a religion : the formal aspect of religious experience"
• sect: (OED) "b. A religious order. Obs." / "A religious following; adherence to a particular religious teacher or faith."
• sect: (MW) "a group within an organized religion whose adherents recognize a special set of teachings or practices" / "a separate group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or way of thinking or to a particular leader."

It is important not to mislead readers into thinking that a particular religious following is somehow "strange or sinister", "spurious", or "heretical". Perhaps the first mention (in the lead) of 'cult' or 'sect' could have a footnote clarifying the meaning? Shreevatsa (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After posting this, I realised it's probably good to have a discussion more generally. I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board#"Cult" / "Sect". Shreevatsa (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References and Transliteration

I was asked to go over the article and take a look at language issues in particular, but also to note any points that might stand out. I will make a few minor adjustments to text here and there and will start to look for references that may not already have been put in. If I think that something will be non-controversial I will just make the change on the article, but don't hesitate to revert me if I do something that may have already been dismissed or is otherwise inappropriate. I have not been following the article and need guidance from more experienced editors on this topic. One thing I notice immediately is that the references I can find so far tend to index him as Irāvat. I will see if this is a pattern in the source texts. I regret that I am a rather slow worker so this may take a while to go over. Regarding transliteration I personally feel that it is best to use correct transliteration at all times, even in the article title. Not all agree with this approach, but it makes a big difference in the quality of the final product. I did the first paragraph, with the exception of the word Mahabharata, to test if it all gets reverted. If not I will keep going. Buddhipriya (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Iravat is the root of the name Iravan, the latter being the nominative (prathama) singular (sanskrit jargon) of the former. Nominative singular is usually used to denote a name in Sanskrit. So I think Iravan is proper. Moreover, Hiltebeitel uses Iravan. Iravat is also used in many sources, but I prefer Iravan, as it is also used in other languages like Marathi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the academic sources I am using so far all use the root form. I suggest that we take a few days to try to survey what variants are most common in more sources, then do something in the article to explain the issue. There will probably be a lot of variants. If you work backward in time to the primary indexes for the Mahabharata, Sorensen is still considered a standard on name citations. The same issue applies for Hanumat, of course. Dikshitar's Purana Index, Hopkins (Epic Mythology, Index p. 246, text p. 26) all use Irāvat. MW p. 168, entry for इरा- comp. –vat notes the nominative suffix form as "(ān), m., N. of a son of Arjuna". Apte (p. 249) has इरावत् (वान्) 1. Ocean, 2. A cloud, 3. A king. 4. N. of a son of Arjuna". Mani (p. 331) indexes it as Irāvān. Macdonell (p. 46, only lists इरावत् as an adjective and (f.) -ī as a name form, not giving a masculine at all). Do you agree, by the way, on strict use of transliteration? Buddhipriya (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Doing some comparison on Hanumat, I see that Apte lists it that way (root form) as well (p. 1022), as does Sorensen (p. 317). I recall that this issue came up once before but I will never be able to find where we discussed it on Wikipedia. The issue has to do with systematic variation in citation forms in different sources. The issue is discussed in Bucknell's Sanskrit Manual pp. 13-14 where he gives examples of how different dictionaries handle this. He makes some interesting remarks on the pros and cons of each method, and basically sees the benefits and problems of each method based on which declension paradigm is used. I will keep looking for more sources. Also for comparison consider that most masculine deities and personal names ending in -a are almost always listed in their root form in English texts. For example, Gaṇeśa, not Gaṇeśaḥ. Buddhipriya (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• About IAST, per WP:ENGLISH, I do not support any IAST except for the name of the central subject. Std. Anglicized spellings for available for Ulupi, Pandavas, Mahabharata etc.
• About Iravat:
  • I was going to give the same example Hanumat -> Nominative singular Hanuman, which also used in other languages with a complete na, unlike the halatya (half) na.
  • All dictionaries will give the root form with N. masculine sing. meaning son of Arjuna, but as a name Iravan is used. Also Iravan, like Hanuman, has been passed in other languages. Another problem is: Iravat as masculine nom. sing. is Iravan, but the root can be run in feminine too with Iravati as nominative singular. Thus the root Iravat has no gender. Iravat can mean Iravati too, which is inaccurate. This problem is not faced by Ganesha as feminine roots do not end in "a", for example the feminine Ganesha (shakti) becomes Ganeshi or Ganeshini. Also Shiva's feminine form (shakti) becomes Shivā. How a root is run per Sanskrit tables defines it gender. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be guided by how it is listed in the academic literature, which I have listed. Let's get some more input. I asked Rudra to give an opinion, and others may want to chime in. By all means set it up as you think best. Buddhipriya (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the Hanumat -> Hanuman example is strictly comparable, and the same approach should apply to both. Names ending in vowels are so much simpler! rudra (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the way Redtiger has it set up now is fine [1] and explains the issue. It's worth mentioning because I think the name variations could be confusing, particularly if anyone tries to look something up and finds that their pet author does not follow the model shown. Buddhipriya (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, establishing the link between the two forms early in the article is important. As long as that is clear enough, there shouldn't be too much cognitive dissonance if the form used in the article differs from that in quoted text. rudra (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Check impact of sentence split

I added a citation to Sorenson on referenced in book 6 of Mbh. and split the sentence so the reference to book 1 can be discussed separately. [2] Please check if the insertion of the period requires that the reference that was at the end of the original sentence needs adjustment. I think the sentence was a run-on anyway, and if the two ideas are split they are simpler to note. I noted that the references in Sorensen are to the Bombay edition; the current references in the article don't specific edition (which affects line numbering). Sorensen's work was prior to the critical edition. I don't think its essential to track down the exact citations in the critical edition but if anybody cares about this it could be done. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. Hiltebeitel (1995) p. 448 was already used as ref for the Books. Mani and Ganguli are used for particular details of the Iravan mentions in Mbh. Query about Sörensen 1902: Is it really in Tamil? I also removing harnv template for uniformity throughout the article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question regarding Tamil and Sorensen. Can you please clarify? I did not go over the details of the individual passages, by the way, all I did was to check chapter numbers. I have some more Mbh. things I can put in but I can't find anything about the later period (yet). Buddhipriya (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorenson is marked as Tamil in References. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple citation of sources

I think that instead of removing references [3] it would be better to cite variants. The problem of having different versification for texts is very common. Best practice for citations is to list whatever variations are known to exist. Dikshitar is a standard reference work. The reference to it can be expanded by adding detail on whatever edition he is citing. Then you would simply have two footnotes on "Vishnu Purana" with two different editions cited. This produces a much stronger citation. I was going to add a second citation to Dikshitar regarding Bhāgavata P. IX.22.32 but will wait until we see if the first Dikshitar ciation goes back in. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But the Dikshitar ref is not removed, it is added in a footnote instead with the other ref. Only, the verse no was removed as diff translations give diff. nos. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I misread it. Sorry to be so careless, I must do better. I think that the reference to Vishnu P. would work better if you split the sentence in two parts, and moved the reference to the Puranic period to follow the Mbh. ref below it. That would give a sense of temporal flow to his development. I will set it up that way and feel free to revert, of course. Buddhipriya (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact checking

A few statements in the lead struck me as being sourced on Wikipedia rather than WP:RS. This is particularly questionable in the area of gender, where Wikipedia is notoriously weak. So I'll do what I can to provide sufficient sources here to establish the necessary facts. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• "On the bottom rungs of Pakistan's social ladder, the eunuch-transvestites or 'Hijras' scrape out a hard existence. Cultural descendants of the court eunuchs of the Mughal Empire (1526-1858), the Hijras now earn their living as beggars, dancers and prostitutes. Though often reported on in India, the Hijras of Pakistan are relatively unknown outside of that country. ... Hijra means hermaphrodite in Urdu, but most Hijras are homosexual transvestites."

—Dennis Drenner, "The Hijras of Pakistan", Queen: a journal of rhetoric and power 11. Emphasis added.

Note 1: the source suggests that Hijra are neither Southeast Asian, nor intersexed. Nor does the term, which is an ordinary Urdu word, designate a cultural group, but rather a sub-culture within Pakistan. Note 2: Dennis Drenner appears to be an award-winning photographer,[4][5] rather than an academic. Queen, however, is technically a reliable source, so we may need to accept that there is a serious editorial process in accepting articles. The publisher of Queen, Ars Rhetorica, describes it as "an experimental electronic journal". Given my own reading in related areas, Drenner looks as though he knows what he's talking about. Interestingly, there's another photographer who has documented the Hijra, Jason Tanner, who comments, "The word Hijra is an Urdu word meaning eunuch or hermaphrodite. However, most Hijras in Pakistan are gay men who leave home to join the Hijra community as young boys where there is more acceptance."

• "Hijras [the Urdu word for 'hermaphrodites'—WPR]" —Editorial comment added to Renate's article.
• "boys and men wearing women's clothing"

—Renate Syed, "Pakistan's Hijras: Feminine Soul, Masculine Body", World Press Review 50/01 (Jan, 2003).

My guess is that hijra is actually an Urdu borrowing from Arabic, with the original sense of "refugee [from mainstream society]". While searching on "hijra" and "refugee" I found a document released by the Australian government Refugee Review Tribunal concerning public information available to them regarding the Hijra of Pakistan.

• "Hizra literally means 'impotent ones'."
• "Many hizras in Bangladesh say they are born hermaphrodite".
• "they are campaigning to get themselves officially recognised as a third gender alongside men and women"

—Roland Buerk,"Fighting for sexual tolerance", BBC News 21 June, 2005.

Best document so far. Looks like I'm wrong about hijra (refugee). "Impotence" seems to be the core meaning of hizra or hijra.

• "Most importantly, they are all men"
• "Hijra is an umbrella term"
• "Only about 1% of the whole hijra community is hermaphrodite or intersexed, remaining are transgender, cross-dressers, homosexuals or bisexuals."

—Humaira Jami, "Condition and Status of Hijras (Transgender, Transvestites etc.) in Pakistan", National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University (nd, 2005?)

Conclusions: there's plenty more material that can be gathered, but the key thing is that "third gender" is a political slogan, not a scientific or medical category. The political view can be reliably sourced on numerous English language articles, however it is a only a PoV and a non-neutral one. If we decide it is helpful to the reader in understanding Iravan, we will need to do the work of sourcing the Islamic religious PoV which condemns the Hijra culture (or at least that will be necessary before we can feature the article). Frankly, I think it would be possible to feature the article, without it addressing gender politics, which are simply not necessary for a reader to understand Iravan and his cult. The connection between Iravan and transvestite men is certainly essential to understanding his cult; however, neutral, well-defined scientific terminology comprehensible to ordinary readers exists to refer to these men, who adopt feminine gender-roles and are typically androphilic (i.e. male homosexuals). Reference to intersex or hermaphroditism is technically WP:UNDUE (since they comprise no more than 1% of Hijra), and reference to "third" gender is PoV, as it is a political concept rather than a verifiable, empirical observation. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See [6][7]. Hiras known only in Pakistan is wrong. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The note is based on http://books.google.co.in/books?id=pHXGypflBLIC&pg=PA23&dq=alis+transexual&hl=en&ei=PCKuS56MAozCrAfEooSnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hijras are known in Australia! See the Australian government paper among the sources above. Even so, all you do by finding sources that disagree with the Queen journal (which actually only claims Hijras are "relatively unknown" outside Pakistan, except in India) is demonstrated that an alternative PoV exists, so we must document both. As mentioned above, since FA requires all PsoV to be reported from the NPoV, we need to research this considerably more if it is genuinely essential to covering the topic of the article. That's fine by me, but it seems strange when the main reliable source on Iravan doesn't see any need to refer to the Hijra. We don't want people claiming that this article includes original research linking Iravan to the Hijra beyond what is WP:DUE. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on your sources. These also confirm the points I've made above from other sources.

• "Hijras are female-identified males, some of whom are transgendered, others transsexual and a few others inter-sexual. They adopt female names and dress in female attires, but their body language, gestures and occupation clearly identify them in public places as hijras, not women."

Comment: the language here is nearly all scientific language. Hijra are all of male sex, but most claim feminine gender identity, some may have had sex-change operations (though few can afford that), a very few have genuine intersex medical conditions. Hijra are male, they are not female. This is clear in all sources. The whole point is: hijra are men but don't act like it, and act like women but are not women.

Absolutely right. They are physically born as men, though they associate themselves to women. Transexual and transvestite in natural. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• "In the culture of the Indian subcontinent, a hijra is a physical male or intersex person, who is considered a member of "the third sex".

Comment: this is from a reliable source, but it contradicts other sources, so we need to report both PsoV. The vast majority of sources report that the hijra are lobbying to be accepted as a third gender (not third sex). That would be odd if they were considered everywhere on their content as already belonging to a third sex. Alternatively, what the source is saying is that popularly and informally they are considered to be a third sex/gender (the distinction is essentially an English language issue), though reliable official and medical sources do not consider them to be so. As already mentioned, that makes it a matter of RS or political PoV.

Traditionally in Hinduism, they are considered a third sex, neither male or female. His curses are feared, their blessings sought at weddings and childbirth, though to kept away uaually. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Hijras trace their historical roots to Hinduism, where they mirrored androgynous deities, as well as to the royal Courts of Islamic rulers."

Comment: Iravan is not androgynous. Hijras are not a reliable source of their historical roots, only of their own opinion about their historical roots. The reliable source documents the Hijra claims. There are a number of androgynous Hindu deities. The sheer frequency of androgyny in the Hindu pantheon is the basis of the Hijra claim, not Krishna's feminine avatar alone.

Conclusion: it is certainly part of the cult of Iravan to acknowledge Krishna's feminine avatar as being actively and popularly associated with transvestism, and without social sanction. It is another thing altogether for this article to take a stance, contrary to science, that transvestism is a third sex, or a political stance that transvestite and homosexual behaviour should be officially endorsed under the term "third gender". There are plenty of reliable sources that argue persuasively for tolerance or active acceptance of transvestism and homosexuality, and "third gender" is one of their slogans. But we can describe the relevant groups without being for or against them, by using more ordinary, and scientifically-supported neutral language. It is the transvestism that is pertinent to the Iravan cult, not the homosexuality. Please provide sources that suggest Krishna is a role model of homosexuality in the Iravan cult (or any other for that matter). I'm very willing to accept that, especially if I hear it from reliable sources on devotion to Krishna. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See GA LGBT themes in Hindu mythology about androgynous deities. In Aravan case, it is his consort Krishna-Mohini who is androgynous. This article does not assert that "Krishna is a role model of homosexuality", which is inaccurate. Krishna is a role model of transexuality. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's precisely what I understood from Prof Alf H. Ability of a god to adopt a female avatar (or a goddess to adopt a male one) suggests support for transexuality, not homosexuality. The two are very well known to be clearly different things. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan claim is inaccurate and UNDUE. National geographic channel has also a documentary called "India's Ladyboyz" [8] on them which covers Aravan too. Hijras are often seen publicly exhorting money from shops or threatening to curse them, dancing in Indian weddings and childbirth ceremonies blessing the child, begging at traffic signals in Mumbai, practising usually gay prostitution. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Mr. Dennis is not a scholar, but just a Freelance Photgrapher. Thus a non-RS. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Humaira Jami is relaible, but he only concentrates on Pakistani hijras, not Indian ones.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Third gender (see wiki article with referenced section on Hijras) is not just political euphemism in India. Tamil Nadu govt has a "M, F and E (eunch)". Indian English translates all Hijras , castrated or not as eunches. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Alf uses the Tamil term "Ali" throughout. newspapers like [9], [10], [11] use the word hijras in relation to Aravan. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

After a long discussion and so much research by you, you can better word the note than me. Please point to other objectionable sentences (if any) here. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your research is good here Tiger, it's more a matter of English language politics.

Part of the problem is the difference between the generic term hijra ("impotent" in Urdu, but also borrowed into Hindi, which are mutually intelligible dialects) refering generally to non-masculine male people, and the proper name Hijra, which refers to specific and identifiable communities in Pakistan (and Bangladesh).

Hijra, with a capital "H" are an identifiable and Pakistani group. Hijra with a small "h" are men who, for a variety of reasons, do not act like men, or who act like women.

We cannot push the Tamil Nadu classification too far. My suspicion would be that Tamil Nadu actually mean ali by their "E" classification, which is very different to the general understanding of eunuch in English. Eunuch in English means a man whose testicles have been removed (with very limited scope to generalize). Most ali will still have their testicles, yet I suspect Tamil Nadu will respect their self-identification as ali or hijra.

Finally, the main thing is, we can't use the language of "third sex/gender", because it is not well-understood world-wide English, even if I take your word for it that it is well-understood in India. Or rather, it is understood in political English, as a slogan used by some people seeking recognition for untraditional gender roles and sexual preferences, including academic writers in political disciplines. It's no particular problem to drop "third gender" language, though, because in political usage this extends also to Lesbianism, which is simply irrelevant to Iravan. "Eunuch", "third gender" and "intersex" are misleading translations of ali, which our main source thinks is best explained but untranslated in his text. I think we should follow his example. Good for you attempting to use English terminology from reliable sources, rather than the word ali, however, in this case it is a real mess to "dip your toes into that water".

I seem to recall a definition of ali in the source. I'll fish that out and add it to the text. That should probably allow all that needs to be said to be said. We can make some minor reference to the fact that ali in Tamil is hijra in Urdu/Hindi, and that there is a well-known set of established communities in Pakistan (and Bangladesh) called Hijra (which live apart and have subgroups each led by a guru).

Anyway, I'll make changes and see what you think. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

These established communities also exist in India. Indian Hijras leave in communities, "which live apart and have subgroups each led by a guru" and do the exhortation from shop-owners, beg and dance in Hindu ceremonies in groups. The word guru is Hindu in nature and not usually asked in Islamic context. They are pan-South-Asian, see also [12]. [13] has a good definition of hijra.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

[14]: another reference identifying them.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Eunuch", "third gender" and "intersex" are misleading translations of ali, Eunch is an Indian English (mis)translation of hijras, alis, aravanis. Intersex is a sub-category, not a translation. third gender ("neither male nor female") is not only political as perceived, it also used. It is used in sanskrit for this group, centuries ago. [15][16] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources provide one term from one attestation in the 3rd century Karma Sutra, and a different term, explained as "non-male" from further back in the Vedic period. The sources are both demonstrating--in quite general terms--that there is ancient precedent for recognition of non-hetrosexual sexual practices existing within Indian culture, though both are quite explicit that some of the practices attested were disapproved of and punished. Quite sensibly, they don't make any direct connection with the hijra, whose Arabic derived name lends credence to the hijra's own claim that their communities were first established in Mughal Empire times.

It is perfectly clear who hijra, ali and aravani refer to: men, many (though a minority) of whom have been emasculated.

We would need a reliable source to confirm for us whether the lobbying to be considered a third sex or third gender is based on a world-wide LGBT movement which uses the same English slogan, or is based on the very ancient references you have found in these sources. Are you seriously proposing the hijra date back to the 3rd century or even the Vedic period? If they don't, how can the ancient sources be referring to them? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "third gender" is noted. I have no objections. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Boons

The Chronology or the numbering of the three boons in the lead section and Iravan#The_three_boons is not matching.--Anish (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The section details the boon according to their appearance in written and oral traditions. The lead classifies them according to cult. What do you suggest? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I was guilty of organizing the boons by cult in the lead, when copyediting about a year ago. If I recall correctly, I felt that identifying the cults was a top-level importance classification to aid the reader, dealing with the boons was a matter of detail. One of the boons is absent from the lead, because it is irrelevant to distinguishing between the top-level classification of differring Iravan traditions.

I've not done any work on the Boons subsection, but I think Tiger has laid that out in the clearest, most logical fashion. Though I'll check that in more detail when I get to it.

It's certainly not impossible to rework the lead to harmonize distinctions between traditions, while providing a more logical introduction to the specific boons. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Article review comments

Still time-constrained, but I'll try to leave some useful comments:

• Re: Each household offers a puja of lamp-waving, coconuts etc. What is "puja"? Also, reword to avoid using etc. in an article; in this context I don't know what else there might be which is similar to lamp-waving and coconuts, so etc. doesn't mean anything to me.

It was linked before in Tamil legends section. Added puja link again. Reworded the sentence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article switches between unspaced em (long) dash, spaced shorter en dash, and unspaced en dash. Try to be consistent.

I request you to choose a convention and please fix it. I am really bad with dashes. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki MoS recommends but does not insist on closed m-dashes. I always copyedit to that MoS recommendation. I will be working through the whole article and it should have all closed m-dashes by the end of that time. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Re: On the eighth day of the war, Iravan combated the princes of Gandhara, the sons of Suvala, the younger brothers of Shakuni - the maternal uncle of the Kauravas. Is the article referring to four, three, two, or one group in combat with Iravan here? The qualifications aren't clearly made. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Review comments

Here is a start at comments, with more to come soon.

• The infobox uses Iravan / Aravan. Iravan is used in the article 40 times, but Aravan is used over 100 times (search limit). So based on the article, it seems like Aravan may be the most commonly used name. Thus it seems odd that four other alternate names come before Aravan in the lead.

Iravan is te original Sanskrit pan-Indian name in the epic Mahabharata, where he plays a minor role. Aravan is the name by which he is worshipped (plays a major role ) in the regional cults. Plz Check. Anyone has better ideas is welcome to change.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My thought was that Aravan should be mentioned earlier in the lead, since it is the name used most often in the article as far as I can tell. I see now he is mentioned earlier - thanks. Iravat should be mentioned in the body (seems to only be in the lead now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Iravat is a popular variant of Iravan. Scholars are divided over a consistent use. See discussion above. A note tells their connection "Iravan is the masculine nominative singular of the root form Iravat." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hiltebeitel is mentioned 49 times - I think he needs a brief description on first mention (Noted X scholar Alf Hiltebeitel suggests that the Sanskrit name Iravan or Iravant is derived from iḍā-vant, ... where X is his field.

Alf Hiltebeitel is the scholar who has most researched Aravan and Draupadi cults. Most secondary sources - I encountered - writing about Aravan use Hiltebeital as a primary source. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I think the article needs to briefly introduce him in some way. So "Alf Hiltebeitel, George Washington Unviersity professor of religion, suggests that the Sanskrit name..." or something like that. Let the reader know why he is a reliable source. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More soon, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Second sentence in the lead, would it make sense to add "In the epic" at the start, so In the epic, he was the son of the Pandava prince Arjuna ...

Actually, he is mentioned as Arjuna's son outside the epic too. "Iravan is also mentioned in a passing reference in Vishnu Purana as well as Bhagavata Purana as the son of Arjuna and Ulupi." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I know you want to avoid jargon, but I think the word Hijra (South Asia) is useful and it can be briefly explained, so perhaps something like and is the patron of the Indian hijra or third gender persons, and transvestites.

Reworded a little differently. Just check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would The Mahabharata portrays Iravan as dying a heroic death in the 18-day Kurukshetra War, which is the epic's main subject (and referred to hereafter as the Mahabharata war). be clearer as just The Mahabharata portrays Iravan as dying a heroic death in the 18-day Kurukshetra War (or Mahabharata war), which is the epic's main subject.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• misplaced the? The Kuttantavar cult focuses on the one of [the?] three boons granted to Aravan...

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Awkward first by the marriage of the Indian third gender members and transvestites - "Ali"s or "Aravani"s to the god Aravan Are the quotation marks needed? does there need to be a second dash? first by the marriage of the Indian third gender members and transvestites - Alis or Aravanis - to the god Aravan...

Done. Not sure about dashes. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Should the word "model" or "ceremonial" or something be added to In an 18-day festival, the [model? ceremonial?] severed head of Aravan is hosted on a post to witness the ritual re-enactment of the Mahabharata war.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Third paragraph of the lead repeats a lot - "severed head" four times, for example. Could the 2nd and 3rd sentences be combined into something like The severed head of Aravan is hosted on a post to witness the ritual re-enactment of the Mahabharata war in an 18-day festival, and is a common motif in Draupadi temples. Often it is a portable wooden head...

wooden head etc. is applicable only to temples part. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• In Etymology it might help to add years to the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary and Alf sentences.

About Alf, I can not place one date as the etymology is discussed in his other papers too and I do not know the first occurrence of the theory.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More to come, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I need a suggestion about linking and explaining: Hijras, Alis and Aravanis. In India, there are 2 major transgender communities: Hijras of the north and Alis of the South. Aravanis are transgenders who have undergone the wedding with Aravan. But, newspapers and books, usually Hijras for all Indian transgender. Hijras, Alis and Aravanis include eunches as well as transvestites. How do I explain this in the article and link appropriately. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More from Ruhrfisch

There are notes that can be added to articles using letters (instead of numbers like footnotes). I was wondering about adding a note on the Hijras, Alis and Aravanis much like what you wrote above. Do you need an example of this?

Plz check the note. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

More points follow

• Per WP:MOSQUOTE the ref should be at the end of the sentence with the quotation Madeleine Biardeau describes religious use of the word Iḍā as reference to an "oblatory substance consumed by the participants from which comes all fecundity of the sacrifice".

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since snakes are part of Aravan's iconography, perhaps this could be pointed out in some of the captions where this is visible - as it is several of the captions are just "Aravan head in X place"

Just check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why is goddess (usually Kali) capitalized in some places (outside of direct quotations) but is usually not capitalized?

Goddess is used to monotheistic concept of Shaktism of Mahadevi (the Great Goddess, the Supreme Goddess), who is said to take the form of all other goddesses. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can dates be added in Development of the legend?

Added all that I found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• In the Mahabharata section, would it make sense to start with the marriage of his parents (Arjuna) and move the first sentence about his birth to the correct internal chronology position?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Add a bit? Thus Iravan reached the battlefield of Kurukshetra to assist his father and Pandavas against their cousin[s and] opponents the Kauravas.?

There is nothing else in the Mahabharata. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Another missing word Finally, Alambusha cut [off?] Iravan's head and killed him.

Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tense needs to be consistent in "Choice as the sacrificial victim" - some present, some past (seems like it should be past to me, but more importantly needs to be consistent). The language here seems a little more stilted too

The story is told in past. "is described" in present. Plz check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Link puja

It is linked in "Choice as the sacrificial victim" . --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unclear what a "lying clay" staue us In Cattiram Karuppur near Kumbhakonam, a 25-feet long lying clay Aravan statue is made.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• These need refs Barbarika is described as the son of Iravan's cousin, Ghatotkacha in the Mahabharata. and The legend of Koovagam also speaks about how Krishna lamented as a widow after Aravan's sacrifice the next day and then turned into his masculine original form.

I don't the Babarika sentence needs a ref, Alf has one though. Moved it to a note. Moved Krishna sentence where the ref is available.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps, looks pretty good to me, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Last comments

• The alt text is missing from the last image (the shadow puppet) - see here for the alt text tool

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:ALT the alt text should be descriptive only and not identify things pictured unless they are very obvious. So Her top left depicts abhaya mudra, the lower one denotes varada mudra. does not meet WP:ALT I am also not clear that the the people pictured are transvestites / eunuchs in A group of seated transvestites and/or eunches dressed in saris mourn.

Changed Kali image and added new alt text. The people in the image are hijras per image description. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would also make clear for the statues that they are statues in the alt text - this is done for some (wooden or sculpture is used) but A big moustached male head, with big eyes, big ears and thick eyebrows. could be describing a real person's head.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• As for the notes, there are people at FAC who do not like to mix decriptive notes and references. For an FL that uses notes and refs, see List of Pennsylvania state parks I also think that some of the descriptive notes need refs themselves.

I am taking a bit of a break, so hope this helps Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

Alf Hiltebeitel says of John Brockington's The Sanskrit Epics (1998):

Virtually every scholar who works primarily on one or the other of the two Sanskrit epics has a book in her or his head that would deal with them both. To my reckoning, however, John Brockington is the first to have actually written such a book, unless we go back to Monier Monier-Williams' very preliminary Indian Epic Poetry (1863). As a work within the Handbuch der Orientalistik series, it does an outstanding job of presenting materials sufficient for acquiring a basic knowledge of the Sanskrit epics, and the scholarly work that has been done on them. Hiltebeitel (2000): p. 161.

Now, to my mind, that's worth quoting in a footnote at this article, because Hiltebeitel is most definitely the single, main source behind the article, and if he's good enough to inform us regarding Iravan, he's certainly good enough to inform us about the value the work of other academics in this area. Readers will not all have questions regarding the reliability of sources, and even those who do will not all care sufficiently to follow links (if we've provided them), and certainly not check the Bibliography to see if any reviews have been included there.

However, the whole purpose of footnotes is to include information, especially quotes, that spare a careful reader having to check information in a library (or even follow links online). This information might not be suitable for the main article text, either because it has to do with verifying that sources are reliable, rather than the subject of the article, or because it would make the main article text longer than is necessary for a reader who is willing to assume sources and facts have been checked.

Although there is something nice and simple in keeping footnotes to simple inline citations, they are not restricted to that purpose by the Wiki MoS, nor in the vast majority of articles here. If this article is accepted at nomination for FA, that will not be the end of its edit history, and future contributors may well want to use footnotes more flexibly than the convention we are currently using. Personally, I think it is a losing battle to try to keep footnotes to such a limited purpose, and counter-productive also.

As a general rule, I quote sources cited inline, because I've seen too many citations that are not supported by the sources cited. It is a classic ploy at Wikipedia for people to offer their own opinions or push their own PsoV, citing a book or article that is not readily available, as though it says something that it doesn't. I have even found quotes that are not in the books cited, or which have been misquoted contrary to their actual author's intentions. However, that last scenario is rare. Nonetheless, the fact remains that quoting, not merely citing a source makes verification easy for Wiki reviewers and readers. Those quotes make articles cumbersome, unless they are relegated to footnotes, which is precisely the way many good articles handle them.

I'm currently working with the footnoting convention that you have requested, Tiger, but I should document somewhere that I have quite a different opinion when it comes to footnotes. Ideally, no one should pass an article for FA unless all citations have been checked. We are making rather a lot of work for people if we don't provide them with relevant quotes. It could be argued that even footnoted quotes should be checked, and in the case of anonymous or new editors I think that is indeed the case, at least for topics with any degree of controversy about them. However, in general, someone with such a great record of academic integrity as yourself, Tiger, I think can be safely assumed to have quoted faithfully, all that needs checking is that the quote really does establish the point it is cited in support of. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is valid about quoting, it increases the size of the page and takes more time loading. I do not want to inconvenience the reader by making the loading of the page slower. If anyone wants to verify sources, I will go down and find the sources and quote the lines, if required. I do use quotes in the rarest of rare cases when the claim is too controversial. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Review comments by Abecedare

Very interesting subject, and a well written and illustrated article overall. Should be a prime candidate for FA after some final polishing. I've read the article once through and will add to the comments below on a re-read. Abecedare (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• High level comments: The purpose and scope of the Development of the legend section is not clear to me. It seems to contain a mish-mash of information that in some cases (particularly the first 2 paragraphs) is restated/expanded in later sections, and in other cases (esp. the 3rd and 4th paragraph) is not clearly related to the development of the legend. Perhaps the first two paragraphs can be merged into the Mahabharata and Tamil legends sections respectively, and the last two into the Worship section. Alternatively, the fourth can also form the seed material for an Iconography and symbolism (sub?)-section. Another possibility could be to write up a Sources section, which compiles all the texts that form the basis of Iravan/Aravan legends; however this may be tough to do for this subject, because of the large number of "primary" texts and variants. Abecedare (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is meant to be a sources and themes, inspirations section. It lists the development of legend via its sourecs: Mbh, Puranas, folk theatre. Themes: self-sacrifice. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you have mentioned iconography, I am adding a para about it, but there not much to write about a severed head. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would keep the Mahabharata section distinct because the material from that source represents a distinct time period that seems to have preceded the later development of the figure in regional stories and practices. This may not be clear to the average reader unless they have a sense of how the Mahabharata sources are positioned relative to later material. I have not been able to find anything related to the question of how Iravan got into the MBh. in the first place, but that is where we seem to first find him. Buddhipriya (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbh section will be distinct, but it needs to be mentioned in "Development of the legend". Iravan is first found in the Mbh. There are 2 options how he is appeared in the Mbh: 1. Hindu tradition: Mbh is history. A person named Iravan existed. 2. Created by the author Vyasa and his pupils. The whole dispute is about historicity of Mbh, which applies all characters in the Mbh. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to bypass the historicity issue. Unless there is some evidence outside the Mbh for Iravan, which reliable sources discussed, I think there is nothing specific to Iravan about that debate, and so we learn nothing much about him by summarizing any of it here.

Regarding durations of traditions, however, there are three very relevant issues, all discussed in sources, and all by Hiltebeitel in particular. The chronology is clear: 1. Sanskrit Mbh (essentially complete before 6th c. CE), 2. South Indian embellishments (from 9th c. CE onwards for many centuries), 3. much more recent, but still centuries old "appropriation" (Hiltebeitel's word) of the S. Indian traditions by the ali. The name aravani is rather obviously applied to the ali at a time after Iravan in Sanskrit became Aravan in Tamil. It is not the case (and no source suggests it) that the ali were already known as aravani before the Sanskrit and their name given to Iravan, nor is it the case that they were known as aravani before the Tamil developments, giving their name to Aravan. They actually play the role of Mohini in the rituals, not of Aravan, of course.

It takes more words to describe this logic in detail here than it does to summarise Hiltebeitel in the text of the article, which I'll do in due course.

I think the dates for the Mbh and for the S. Indian traditions will be sufficient to address Abecedare's question, which I actually shared, until I found the material in Hiltebeitel. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Haines Alastair, what you think about moving the first para of Java to "Development" as it is related to development, for consistency. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I supplied that paragraph as an introduction to the section on Javanese traditions. Although it could fit under Development, that would make it so far removed from the Javanese section, it would seem unreasonable to expect a reader to remember it, were it moved. Also, I think Development is complicated enough restricted to India itself. I prefer the paragraph where it is. Other people may think one way or another. I don't think there is a "right" answer.

One thing that is interesting, but not discussed in our sources (that I've seen) is that the Javanese traditions are unknown in India, and likewise the Tamil traditions are unknown in Java. It is data like this that allows scholars to date writings and build up a picture of their evolution. But, as I said, that's interesting, but not discussed explicitly in the sources, so I'd recommend leaving the Javanese section as a self-contained "appendix" to the rest of the article.

Perhaps one day, there should really be a content fork: Aravan in South India (basically the current "parent" article) and Irawan in Java. But that will need someone to do considerable work on the Javanese traditions.

PS It's unusual to refer to someone by surname in English, unless you are "talking down to them" (schoolteacher or boss), i.e. it is rude between adults, unless you are "pulling rank", unless two extremely good friends adopt this form of address in mockery of the other pompous usage (which is even out of fashion in schools and the workplace).

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable, in fact prefered, in academic usage, but is always third person, not second person reference in those cases.

I consider you to be a friend Tiger, so you can actually call me AL (short for Alastair), if you are comfortable with that. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems a good point. PS: I did mean to offend you. I was unaware of the surname thing, Alastair. Things are different culturally in India, where you do not have the Western first name concept in colleagues and even friends may not necessarily use first names. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken, friend, just a good excuse to help you feel more comfortable calling me Alastair. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph of lead

A second copyeditor has helped us with the lead, which is excellent. I'll want to tweak a few things, though. The revised version doesn't make it clear that the cults of Kuttandavar and Draupadi are from South India. It also suggests the hijra are from the same region, whereas they originate in Pakistan. The local name for the same people is ali and, very notably, aravani. These are only details needing tweaking, overall I liked the edit. I'm generally less drastic in making changes, which is very frequently not best practice, so I appreciate the boldness of others. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I had requested Blofield to peer review and look at the article, as like you Alastair, he is very helpful and knowledgeable. I do agree that in context of Aravan, the names "alis" and "aravanis" (derived from Aravan) are more important and some tweaks are required to connect the cults to South India as Aravan's significance in S. India is due to these cults. Overall, the shorter para 1 reads better. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I only got around to editing the first part last night. I'm too tired today to edit but as long as you ensure the reader knows it is from South India. I thought the first few lines said which is particularly signifianct in South Inda. That would be good enough for me. If not for you then alter it.

I've altered it as you requested. I hope this is satisfactory. Congrats on the GA. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As for Hijras, as Alastair would also agree, Pakistan mention is not needed. I will add ali and aravani names, which are significant. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Hijra (an Urdu term) are males (and sometimes physically intersexed individuals) devoted to the worship and service of Bahuchara Mata, one of the many Indian mother goddess figures."

— W Roscoe, "Priests of the goddess: gender transgression in ancient religion", History of Religions 35 (1996): 195–230.

Many sources speak the same way about the hijra. I think historically they must represent a different tradition to that of the aravani. I've been researching the hijra and there are lots of sources. Many speak of the hijra goddess, none have mentioned Iravan. However, a huge number of those sources are medical or political, not historical or literary. My guess is that non-Tamil people in South India may well call the aravani by the more universal name hijra. Also, the Northern hijra may have decided that the southern traditions of the aravani are just as applicable to the hijra and decided to join in with a festival that already recognized a place for people of their lifestyle. Those are just a guess and I simply can't know without a source.

I recommend we replace "hijra" with "ali and aravani", rather than simply adding "ali and aravani". Otherwise, we really need a source that explains how hijra have a Goddess, who seems to be their main patron, and yet include Iravan. I know that's quite possible, but I just need to see it in black and white. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

See LGBT themes in Hindu mythology where "Conner, Randy P.; Sparks, David Hatfield and Sparks, Mariya (1998). Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit. UK: Cassell. ISBN 0304704237. p. 66" is used as a reference for the Hijra-Aravan connection. Also see Same-sex love in India: readings from literature and history By Ruth Vanita, Saleem Kidwai p. 209 Your guess about the Northern hijras practising in the Aravan rituals is right and is documented in the documentaries Taboo by BBC and India's Ladyboyz by National Geographic, both of which I have been on the National Geographic Channel on TV. Also hijra is more of a pan-Indian term, Ali/Aravani limited to Tamil. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, "The annual mass wedding of hijras to Aravan" is a clear statement of connection in a reliable source. I don't doubt the connect at all, though, my concern is only about the claim that Aravan is patron for the hijra. "Patron", unless modified implies either exclusivity or substantial integration into the spiritual lives of the hijra beyond simply the obviously major involvement with Koovagam. Also, "hijra" can actually mean three things: either the northern ali, who are not called ali but hijra; the southern aravanis, who are called hijra by northerners; or pan-Indian ali and hijra without distinction.

I can't quite be sure, without a source, whether perhaps southern ali and aravani are actually no different at all from northern hijra. If that were the case, things are most simple, we can call them whatever we like; and, I would think, ali would be the best (linked to Hijra (South Asia)), given the current article's setting in the South.

If there's no difference between the groups, then the patron of the Hijra is a matron, the goddess Bahuchara Mata (note the second last paragraph of the lead). That doesn't stop them having a relationship with Krishna (by imitating his form as Mohini), nor with Iravan (by ritual marriage), but it does mean we are misrepresenting the prominence of Iravan in the main course of their spiritual lives. We cannot say hijra are members of the Hare Krishna movement, just because they play the role of Mohini once a year!

The final sentence is currently wrong, unless I can find a source that says southern aravani are not associated with Bahuchara Mata the way that the northern hijra are well known to be. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[17] says "Aravan[6] is the patron saint of the transsexuals of Tamilnadu". Mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik in The goddess in India: the five faces of the eternal feminine p. 37 says "following story tells the story of a man who, in his quest to know the love of his wife, ends up becoming becomes the patron god of eunches and transvestites" and then narrates Aravan's Sthala Purana tale. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, besides Bahuchara Mata of Gujarat, Samba (Krishna's son) is a patron (see LGBT themes in Hindu mythology) and Renuka/Yellamma of Karnataka-Maharashtra is another patroness.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding! Thanks for finding those. Thanks especially for the extra info, because it really helps make it fair to say "a patron". We can't say "the patron", because there are several others. Saying "patron" without any article, strictly speaking, wouldn't imply Iravan was the only patron, nor that he was only one of many. However, with all the material you've gathered, "a patron" is precisely the right way to say it. Your first source even supports the term "patron".

From the point of view of the Hijra article, I think Bahuchara Mata will turn out to be the main patron goddess, but from the point of view of this article, it is fair enough to say:

Iravan is also a patron god of well-known transvestite communities called ali (also aravani in South India, and hijra throughout South Asia).[Somasundaram O, "Transgenderism: Facts and fictions", Indian Journal of Psychiatry 51 (2009): 73–75.]

I'll change the sentence to read that way, adding in your reference along with it, if you're happy with that. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no one patron as rightly said by you. The patrons change by region. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Iyer, Nalini. "Hijra/Hejira." Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. 2008. SAGE Publications. 9 Apr. 2010. <http://www.sage-ereference.com/gender/Article_n209.html>: reads: "Several Hindu temples including the Yellamma temple in Hyderabad, the Koothandavar temple in Tamil Nadu, and the Bahuchara Mata temple in Gujarat are sacred sites for hijras" Koothandavar is Koovagam name of Aravan. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! That's extremely helpful, not only here but at the Hijra article. Interestingly, with a slight translation out of PoV language, she defines the hijra exactly the way I did in that article. Woohoo! Interestingly, Koothandavar is listed ahead of Bahuchara Mata by Iyer. Thanks for the source. I'm very happy now about what we say, and I'm beginning to think ali and hijra might be exactly the same. Anyway, what we have is all we need for our article. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably keep on noticing things I've missed, or errors I've introduced for a while, but basically I'm done except for the two really key sections: Boons and Koovagam. The prose of those should be particularly engaging, but facts need to be scrupulously sourced and logically presented. You do those things really well, Tiger, but I'm very fussy. I hope to be able to spend two one-hour sessions copyediting those sections tomorrow Australian time. I often slow down if I feel the need to check facts. I can take hours reading sources just to be sure whether we can say "a" or "the" patron, for example. I'll try to leave that out tomorrow, just making sure the text flows nicely first. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What you call your fussiness helps the article improve a lot and other articles also improve in the process eg. Hijra. Continue being fussy. It helps. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What can I say? I'll keep it to thanks, this time. Danyavat! (I don't know how to spell that). Alastair Haines (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)