I have just moved the content, i removed in elsewhere. Why is this version given undue weight, and the context removed that shows that there is variation in the myths?īuddhipriya 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I had taken a WP:BOLD and just wanted to show how the section can be shorted somehow if one feel that you didn't like it, please revert. Here is a cut that for no clear reason gives prominent play to one of the variant myths. A balanced handling of the two different tradtions needs to come through in whatever shorter version of this material results. Here is a detail that in itself is not major, but which in context makes the point that in the Moragon complex the two shaktis are of the Buddhi/Siddhi tradtion rather than the Riddhi/Siddhi variant that was not cut. This seems to be an attempt to return to content disputes that were previously gone over. 
Here is an example of removal of material that was attempted by this editor in the past, but which was rejected at that time. Here are examples of cuts that suggest subtle editorial shifts: I hope that all cuts will be made in a manner consistent with WP:CON. If the section is to be shortened, the key question is what are the key ideas that need to stay. This is a disappointing behavior on an article where improvements ideally would be made with more input. Now we are subjected to cuts with no discussion whatsoever of what should go or stay. This article has reached a mature status and has had relatively little content change for the past couple of months except for cases where there has been significant discussion prior to the removal of material. This is the same sort of unilateral behavior done despite obections that created disruption on Sritattvanidhi. Redtigerxyz 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)ĭone with Para 1 - Buddhi, Riddhi, Siddhi.- Redtigerxyz 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC) These cuts are being done without any consensus. Thus I feel that the section should be shorted.I will start doing so from today, a little everyday. Buddhipriya 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Ganesha article has all the information in Consorts of Ganesha, except 3 paras 
Overall the article is not now too long, and I see no reason to cut it. The issue of the multiple views is clearly notworthy because many authors have covered it. Everyone' suggestions are welcome - Redtigerxyz 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) It probably can be shorted somewhat, but I do not agree that it is too long now. I suggest that the 3 paragraphs and the 3rd paragraph in the introduction of Family and consorts should be clubbed to form 1 paragraph. Anyone who wants to read the details can go to the Consorts article. Since the topic Consorts of Ganesha has a separate article dedicated to it, details like Interpretations of relationships and shaktis can be avoided or only a 2 to 3 line reference to the same should be made. Thus a case of Undue Weight can be presented. I feel the Consorts of Ganesha section is too long (3 paragraphs).
21 Ganesha references in Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations. 17 Request for Comment on Ganesha not in the Vedas. 14 Doesn't Ganesha appear in the Upanishads?.
0 kommentar(er)
