Template:Did you know nominations/Uchchhishta Ganapati

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Uchchhishta Ganapati edit

(

)

... ~~that the Tantric deity Uchchhishta Ganapati is often depicted with a naked goddess, his trunk touching her vagina?~~

ALT1 ~~... that the Tantric deity Uchchhishta Ganapati (pictured) is often depicted with a naked goddess, both touching each other's private parts?~~

Reviewed: Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party

Created by Redtigerxyz (talk). Self nominated at 13:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC).

New, long enough, hook with reference. Find no copyvio with one online source, others with AGF and image is in PD. I go with ALT hook (which pictured here). --Gfosankar (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's use grownup language, and the ; doesn't belong:

ALT2 ... that the Tantric deity Uchchhishta Ganapati (pictured) is often depicted with a naked goddess, each touching the other's genitals?

EEng (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In DYK, I would a simpler term "private parts" than "genitals".

ALT3, ~~... that the Tantric deity Uchchhishta Ganapati (pictured) is often depicted with a naked goddess, each touching the other's private parts?~~ Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow Redtigerxyz's reasoning: "private parts" is not simpler, it's just baby talk. Let's be a little more adult and use grown-up terms like "genitals". --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to "genitals" either, which the article text already uses the term "genitalia" for the same.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think I prefer "private parts", "genitals" sounds too clinical. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, getting a bit distracted here? I take it that we have a hung jury on the wording, so how about we pass all three ALTs which are all OK anyway. They're all clear as to meaning, and none contains offensive language. In the US the ALT1 wording may be considered baby talk, but in the UK the same wording is seen as shyly archaic and prudish, and tends to be used most by the elderly. Therefore I don't think any of us can claim to be sure of the right answer. Initial review of 19 June by Gfosankar still stands and I take it on trust. I have replaced semi-colons with commas in the first two hooks in response to comment above. Good to go with original hook, ALT1 and ALT2, all checking out with online citation #2. --Storye book (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Never, ever use the phrase hung jury in a discussion of "private parts". EEng (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. If you don't understand, do not ask me to explain. Ask your grandmother.

I protest the use of a hyphen in semicolons. EEng (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Re vulgar innuendo: Yes. I do English humour. I'm impressed that you handled that one and worked it up so adroitly. Re semi-colon: in the UK it can be written either way, and the Oxford dictionary has it spelled both ways. I understand that in the US it is normally written without the hyphen. --Storye book (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In the US it's spelled with a hemi-hyphen. Note: Images are recycled humor used previously in other discussions. EEng (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Still good to go. --Storye book (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

After perusing this article and its sources, I am hesitant to move the hook to the prep areas yet. I started out with some concern about a need for copyediting in the article, but I started to become concerned about content. My first problem is with with the strong and prominent statement in the lead that this is "one of [the?] most popular [of the?] thirty-two forms of Ganesha". That statement isn't in the article body and it isn't supported by a footnote where it appears in the lead; I looked for some more information (I hoped to fix the wording and add a source), but I cannot find an indication that there are exactly 32 forms of Ganesha, and the lists that I found of the "most popular" did not include Uchchhista.

I was also surprised to find that, while the "Worship" section of the article describes the Uchchhishta Ganapatya sect as an active sect, the sources that I could access use past-tense verbs to describe it. I get the impression that this sect (which the sources call the Ucchishta Ganapati) is one that is described in the Vedic literature, and that it probably does not exist in modern times. Considering the hedonistic nature of the cult's practices, describing it as an active sect could be considered insulting if it is actually just an ancient sect described in the old literature. Therefore, before this goes to the main page, I'd like some clarification on the status of this sect.

I hope that the article creator, or other users familiar with Hindu religion and the sources, can help address these factual points. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Orlady, I am changed the wording of "most popular" to ", frequently mentioned in devotional literature." as in the article Thirty-two forms of Ganesha; since the objection is to "most popular". Quoting Ramachandra Rao from that article "Śakti-gaṇapati, Ucchishṭa-gaṇapati and Lakshmī-gaṇapati are also tāntrik forms, which receive worship which is cultic and esoteric." (present tense) - 1992. Bhandarkar (1913 orig year; reprint 1995) also uses present tense. "The followers of this variety resort to the left-handed path ... There is no distinction of caste among the followers of this sect. No restriction is to be observed ... The follower should have a red mark on his forehead." The first instance of mention of this sect is in relation to Adi Shankara; I don't think this is Vedic. The references I have, do not explicitly say it is active or extinct. The cult is not hedonistic; but just follows the ideals of Tantra. We can find references saying that the main school of Tantra is active. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

On the grounds of the article alone, I would agree with Redtigerxyz that there is no basis for the words "hedonistic" or for a modern usage of "cult" in the context of this Hindu deity, and these words do not appear in the article's text anyway. As I understand it, to be hedonistic is to knowingly have far too much fun for your own good, an extreme example being to drink oneself to death. There is nothing like that in the article, and - apart from the last sentence - nothing worse than e.g. Christianity being associated historically with the Crusades or the Inquisition. If the last sentence were adjusted to say that (a) the association with spells is an historical one, and (b) so that it says that some followers believed in the spells (i.e. doesn't imply that spells can really kill people) then that last paragraph should not cause insult. Regarding the mention of a cult - there is no cult here in the derogatory sense of modern popular usage; it says "sect" which is just a sub-group whose beliefs differ in some way from that of the larger group. "Cult" in the religious context used to mean just a group which followed a certain leader or deity, but unfortunately today it is used in Western newspapers to mean groups with pseudo-holy leaders with suspect agendas. --Storye book (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and if a cult was founded by two physicians then you might say its origin is a paradox. Let's just hope that when this hook is promoted we don't get the two surgeons on the main page by mistake, what with the private parts and so on. EEng (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion underlines my reasons for concern to avoid presenting misleading information about a religious group, because it reminds usr how easy it can be to offend.

Please note that I am unfamiliar with Hindu religion. I was trying to understand the content of this article, and trying to determine whether it was supported by the sources cited. Here's a summary of what I saw in sources:

Elements of Hindu iconography is a reprint of a 1914 book. It states "Uchchista-Ganapati is worshipped by many even in these days with a view to achieve their desired objects." The words "even in these days" suggest that many other practices described from the past were no longer in use as of 100 years ago, and the rest of the sentence implies that the modern worship of this form of Ganesh was narrowly focused on achievement of desired objects.
The cited book Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems is a reprint of a book first published in 1927 or earlier (I can't determine the original publication date). That book's description of Ucchista-ganapati appears to be a paraphrasing of a description from an ancient book (there is a reference to RV. II. 23. 1, but I can't tell what book it refers to because the Google Books version omits pages; based on what I can see it might be the Mānavagarhyasūtra). The book also states (apparently referring to present times) that "the worship of Ganapati ... is practiced by nearly all Hindus," but it is not clear whether the practices of the specific sects had persisted into modern times. Its description of the sect of Ucchista-ganapati states (in part) that No restriction is to be observed, such as marriage imposes, and promiscuous sexual intercourse is allowed and also the use of wine. It also notes that "the form of Ganapati meditated on is very obscene." The statement about sexual promiscuity and wine gave me the impression that the sect could be considered hedonistic.
The cited book The Cult of Vinayaka (of which I have only a Google snippet view) appears to be more modern. The snippet I see from page 59 uses past-tense verbs in describing the Ucchista sect (...did not obey caste distinctions and various samskaras like the marriage etc. They took wine, their sect mark was a red circle...).

It appears to me that some of the religious practices described in the article are not modern practices, but are descriptions from older texts. Please excuse me, but I don't know the distinctions that may exist between Vedic texts, Upanisads, Mantra-maharnava, Uttara-kamikagama, Kriyakramadyoti, Mānavagarhyasūtra, and other texts named in the article and sources. I'm just trying to ensure that Wikipedia content is verifiable from reliable sources -- and I do know that we would not use the Book of Deuteronomy to describe the religious practices of modern Judaism. --Orlady (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(←) Orlady, As noted earlier, this form of Ganesha is part of Tantra worship, a Heterodox (not hedonistic) tradition, whom orthodox Hinduism (Brahmanical Hinduism) regards with disdain. The article clarifies that rituals like the wine one are not part of mainstream Hinduism. "also its (wine's) use in worship, a taboo in classical Hinduism". The article says the "many" part is the view of Rao. "Rao notes that he is worshipped by "many" to gain the desired from the deity." Also, Rao says that the deity is worshipped. The Ucchista-ganapati para in Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems (1995) does not have any references. The earlier para about Haridra-Ganapati where a single verse from RV. II. 23. 1. (Rig Veda) is referred; the Veda is not the reference for the whole para. The Book of Ganesha also uses present tense: "Worship of this manifestation is performed when the supplicant is ... ". The article starts with "Uchchhishta Ganapati is an Tantric aspect of the Hindu god Ganesha". It tries to be as neutral as possible as reminding the reader that the practices are Tantric, not mainstream Hindu. I repeat Tantra is not mainstream Hinduism, but it is still part of active Hinduism. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Orlady. Thank you for your explanation and for taking the time to do all that research and write out your sources for us. That is much appreciated. I think what we have here is a misunderstanding based on a difference between cultural norms, and the perception of one era and culture by another era and culture. I think that that the agenda behind the statements you have quoted is an example of (pre-1927) orientalism as understood by Edward Said. That is in this case, an inappropriate value judgement of certain eastern cultures from the point of view of a Puritan Western ethos, influenced by the temperance movement. It is the pre-1927 author who uses the word "promiscuous", not the Uchchhishta Ganapati sect. (Note: the following explanation is based on my UK experience; I can't speak for the US). If the same author could have time-travelled into our modern really-rather-boring English pubs, filled with men downing the odd single pint late on a Sunday morning to escape their wives for a few minutes before lunch, or could have met the 50% of my unmarried 21st century acquaintances who are parents, we might expect him to use the word "promiscuous" or to say with loaded meaning that they "have wine", because he comes from a different world. I know that the author was Western, but don't know whether he was British. But here, at least, in the 19th century and before 1927, many men had never seen their wives naked, and many women married without knowing how babies were made (that includes my grandmother and her sister, both born before 1900). So when the author says "the form of Ganapati meditated on is very obscene," he is almost certainly referring to the type of image that we have in our article. Today we are sophisticated enough to be able to see it as a metaphor for the oneness of two deities, and to appreciate that the sexuality in the image is not necessarily considered shameful and dirty in cultures and eras other than the author's own. So I would say that the apparent hedonism indicated in the source is actually the taint caused by orientalism and cultural and generational dysjunction, and that for us today any value judgement by such a source is thankfully redundant. --Storye book (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that perspective, Storye book. The reason I focused on this is that almost one entire paragraph of the article is a description of this Uchchhishta Ganapati sect, based largely on the sources I described here. If the sources are a Victorian-era British misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the worship of this manifestation of Ganesh (i.e., not a reliable description of an actual Hindu sect), the content doesn't belong in the article at all. --Orlady (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Orlady. I'm glad you brought it up, so that we could bring the issues into the open, so no problem there. I think we have to accept that all historical sources have a moral and cultural perspective in some way different from our own. However I hope we can differentiate between moral judgements and reported facts in the sources we use - so we can e.g. say that yes, they were allowed wine, but that no, being allowed wine is not always a sign of hedonism. Yes they were allowed to live without the restriction of marriage, but no that didn't mean they were all debauched; in fact it could possibly have meant that they were allowed to mate faithfully for love instead of suffering inappropriate arranged marriages. I hope that helps? --Storye book (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on discussion here, I'm not convinced that the cited sources that describe the Uchchhishta Ganapati sect are reliable sources. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that there is (or ever was) a distinct Uchchhishta Ganapati sect. --Orlady (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC) The Sanford article (footnote 1), which I accessed online at [1], is a recent source that is also cited in connection with the "sect". However, it appears to describe the school of worship, not a sect. It does, however, associate the practices with a "Tantric cult" described in a 10th-century text. --Orlady (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? And the difference between a "school of worship" and a sect is ... what? We went through this on the Heramba nom -- handwringing over whether it would be offensive to mention that certain rites are (or have been) directed at harming others. It underestimates our readers. EEng (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal perspective. In the context of this article, the word "sect" indicates a subgroup of Hindus who are characterized by their singular focus on the worship of the Uchchhishta form of Ganesh. Multiple sources indicate that many Hindus sometimes (or perhaps often) engage in worship of (or meditation on) this form of Ganesh. My concern is that there does not seem to be any reliably-sourced support for stating that there is a group (i.e., sect) singularly devoted to this manifestation of Ganesh, with a set of practices/behaviors peculiar to the sect. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

And thank you, as well, for giving us the benefit of your insights. For heaven's sake, do you always have to do this? I guess this is the law of England too. EEng (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

EEng, after Template:Did you know nominations/Heramba, this happening all over again. DYK was a project that encouraged editors to create new articles, improve articles. Today, getting a reasonable start article pass DYK is tougher than getting an article pass GA; even though GA criteria are stricter than DYK criteria. The WP:CENSORhip and worries about "offending" readers perplexes me by talking about Tantra, a heterodox sect/"school of worship"/cult - words which are used many a times interchangeably in Hinduism related scholarly books. I am discovering absurd conclusions like Uchchhishta Ganapatya is NOT a sect. I have trying to explain Hinduism to Westerners, presumingly Abrahamic religions (Christians mostly) who are comparing it to their own religion and are offended. The most broad definition of "Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines" i.e. all policies, is used, DYK has turned into a psuedo FAC without comprehensiveness (thank God), where every sentence is scrutinized till no end. So, we always have some 20 odd verified hooks in 200 odd nominations. If I am spending some much time/effort on DYK for a half day appearance on main page in bunch of bolded blue links to get 500 views, why not improve an GA article to FA with little more effort. Thanks for driving me away to GAN and FAC. Like DennisBrown and Melanie on the Psychiatric Museum DYK, I am quitting DYK to live a life of peace. Good bye. Hope some day I will return here when DYK and its overlords become much more friendlier. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, no, don't be discouraged. I predict this nom will be approved soon. Here - I'm calling the reviewer back - Gfosankar? EEng (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think SB's right below -- no need for reviewer to return after all. EEng (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, people, for your input. In response to Orlady's mention of a group singularly devoted to this deity, I would say that it depends on what you meant by "singularly", since that word does not appear in the article. Hinduism is a religion which, as I understand it, worships a number of gods, not a single one like the People of the Book for example. The article just describes the deity as a patron, so the deity is considered an important one perhaps, but there is no reason to suppose that it is considered the only one that matters. I think we have wasted enough time here on a certain type of cross-cultural misunderstanding by Westerners of an eastern religion in which things may be fluid and are not necessarily official and clear-cut, and where symbolism means very different things. I agree with EEng that this nom is still good to go. --Storye book (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)