Talk:Iravan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Amavasya: New Moon Day

In India, everyone knows that the day of the new moon has its own special name, and spiritual significance in many traditions. In UK, US, Australian, etc. English, there is no equivalent Proper Noun, or spiritual allusion. In the US, they have a day called Thanksgiving, after the name of the national celebration held on that day. But if you ask an Australian like me, what day is Thanksgiving? we won't know what you're talking about. But everywhere New Year's Day is known, it is the first day of the new year, of course. So, outside the US, people don't know what Thanksgiving is, likewise, outside India they don't know what New Moon Day is. What we recognise is the day of the new moon, like the first day of the year. If you'd really like to have a proper noun for the day of the new moon, it needs to be Amavasya ("the day of the new moon") not New Moon Day or new moon day. "New moon day" does not mean anything to English speakers outside India, except that we can guess it means "the day of the new moon".

I hope that makes some kind of sense. I think I made some alterations that were reverted, but there's my explanation for why I made those changes. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In Indian English, Amavasya is translated as new moon day. Instead of "the day of the new moon", will "the new moon" suffice to denote the day. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that, I guessed it was a matter of English dialectic variation. "The new moon" will be understood as referring to the moon, not a day, in the US, the UK, Australia, etc. "The day of the new moon" is about as short and sweet as I can think of, that phrase is perfectly natural non-Indian usage. Here are alomst four million hits for that phrase on the internet alone.

Personally, I'd be happy with amavasya or even Amavasya, so long as the phrase I've recommended was provided as a gloss in parentheses after the first usage. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"The day of the new moon" is good enough with a hidden link to Amavasya. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed then. Sorry other dialects are so poor at handling this. But I'd have to explain swaggy in an Australian article. Backpacker would not do as a "translation". ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes

I've standardised the footnotes so they generally provide citations in the form:

• (A) Jane Doe (1945) pp. 1066–69

My own preference is for:

• (B) Jane Doe (1945): 1066–1069.

At this article, people are best off following the (A) form, because it has been established as the standard here. However, the (A) form is vulnerable to a few easy typos. Instead of "pp.", "p." will often be found. Both the full stop after the p and the space between the stop and the first page number are often omitted by accident or design. Additionally, when the reference completes a sentence with a finite verb—like "See Jane Doe (1945) ..."—or an implied verb—"...; also [see] Jane Doe ..."—the footnote should be completed with a full stop. Footnotes are not image captions, they are, strictly speaking, part of the text of the article. Perhaps, just perhaps, if citations are strictly differentiated from notes, then and only then, would such a convention of not completing citations with a full stop make sense. Perhaps confusion arises by applying other Wiki MoS policies indiscriminately to footnotes, perhaps it arises because templates don't provide final full stops. Templates can't provide the full stop, though, because parentheses, semi-colons, m-dashes and other punctuation might follow references within article text or within footnotes. Templates, by omitting the full stop, are not proscribing such punctuation, in fact, they are actually providing flexibility for all manner of other appropriate punctuation following citations, including full stops.

Use of the colon instead of "p." or "pp." seems a much simpler convention to type and to read, requiring less copyediting for errors also. Providing the final page number in full is frequently helpful and hardly an effort. The fussy requirement of an n-dash to indicate a numeric range can't be helped, but is needed in either convention.

Anyway, I've done this work at this particular point in time. I'd appreciate others keeping it in line from here on in. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer A as it is similar to that generated using {{cite book}}. Wikipedia has no set standards about reference styles, it only needs consistency. To be consistent with other references, A be retained. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Though please note my point: "Templates, by omitting the full stop, are not proscribing such punctuation, in fact, they are actually providing flexibility for all manner of other appropriate punctuation following citations." Alastair Haines (talk)

Sentence move

Ah yes! That's a much better place for the sentence regarding dating Kuttantavar and Draupadi cults. Good thinking. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Panini

Panini is cited by van Buitenen as a source for dating the Mahabharata. Since the Panini reference is available online in Sanskrit with English translation, I provided it so readers (like myself and I'd imagine many others) can actually verify it. But, whether we retain the link or not, Panini is cited in the article, so should appear in the Bibliography. He is a valuable primary source, interpreted by a reliable secondary source.

I can see one issue, it takes a scholar to understand how the Panini reference alludes to the Mahabharata, but that is precisely why we utilize reliable secondary sources. Unaided by van Buitenen, I would not have realised that Panini could well be alluding to the Mahabharata in his grammar at this point, but having had that pointed out, I can now see why there is a good case for this. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Panini is not used directly cited in the article. He is a primary source, which is interpretated by Buitenen, our secondary source, which is cited in the article. I have moved the link to Panini's article where it can be verified as well as used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, I'll copy it to the Mbh article, where it's most useful. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Partial proofing for ongoing FAC

Finetooth comments: Here are my observations and suggestions through the end of the "Three boons" section. I'm afraid that's all I have time for. Perhaps you can extrapolate from this to find and correct similar problems. Hope this helps.

Lead

• "However, the South Indian cults transmit a supplementary tradition: Aravan's self-sacrifice... " - I'm not sure "transmit" is the right word. Suggestion: "However, the South Indian cults have a supplementary tradition of honoring Aravan's self-sacrifice... ".
• "The Draupadi cult emphasizes another boon: Krishna allowing Aravan to witness... ". - "allows" rather than "allowing"?
• "Often it is a portable wooden head, sometimes it even has its own shrine in the temple complex, or is placed on the corners of temple roofs as a guardian against spirits." - Semicolon instead of comma after "wooden head".

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and other names

• "Aravan's association with snakes is also noticed in his iconography." - "apparent" rather than "noticed"?
• The third paragraph is unsourced.

Done. References for name Aravan is throughout the article and Kuttantavar name is in "Aravan to Kuttantavar".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Iconography

• The first paragraph is unsourced.
• "Aravan-head icons are of two types—painted and unpainted—one for processions, but both housed together in his shrines, where the temple possess both kinds of icon." - Which kind is used in processions? "Are housed" rather than "housed"?

First para: "worshipped" part is well documented throughout Alf Hiltebeitel's work and temples section. The rest of para is a general description of Aravan based on images of Aravan, seen throughout the article, linked to external galleries and printed in Hiltebeitel's work. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical development

• "The earliest surviving components of this dynamic text are believed to be no older than the earliest external references we have to the epic... " - Generally the first-person pronoun "we" is not used in Wikipedia articles unless part of a direct quote. Delete "we have"?
• "also with a text history from the late Vedic through to the Gupta periods" - Tighten by deleting "to"?
• Since they are texts, should the names of the individual puranas such as Vishnu Purana and other texts such as Devi Mahatmyam appear in italics?

Should Mahabharata also be italicized throughout? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The legend is also attested in the text Khoothanvar Sthala Purana, associated with the shrine of Kuttantavar." - "mentioned" or "related" rather than "attested"?
• "In modern interpretations, Aravan's head symbolizes not only self-sacrifice, but also regeneration and continuity" - I don't think you need the comma after "self-sacrifice".

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mahabarata

• "Iravan, the "chastiser of foes"—versed in maya (illusion)—slays five of the Kaurava brothers in a sword fight, Vrishava alone escapes death." - Semicolon instead of comma after "sword fight".

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Selection as sacrificial victim

• "a 9th century Tamil version" - Hyphenate "9th-century" since it is being used as an adjective.
• "Krishna establishes that there are four candidates, most suited to being offered as the victim:" - No comma.
• "From this short-list, Krishna finally narrows... " - No hyphen.
• "Finally, in all versions of the tale, Krishna tricks the gods Surya (the Sun) and Chandra (the Moon) to co-ordinate their movements so that the day of the new moon will fall one day earlier—the current day—so that Aravan can make the initial sacrifice of flesh on behalf of the Pandavas, only making the rest-offering on behalf of Duryodhana the following day, yet fulfilling his promise to Duryodhana by doing so." - Too complex. I'd suggest re-writing this as two or three sentences.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Three boons

• "indicates an early (9th century) effort" - Hyphen in 9th-century since it is being used as an adjective.
• "effort to harmonize the Tamil tradition of Aravan's pre-battle sacrifice, with the original Sanskrit account of his death during the battle, at the hands of Alambusha (Alampucan in Tamil)" - Delete two commas, which break up the natural flow of the sentence.
• "Villiputuralvar's 14th century version" - Another compound adjective, "14th-century version".
• "In this version, Aravan is granted boons of watching the battle for a "few days", and of dying gloriously after killing many enemies, though Villiputuralvar does not actually specify whether Aravan's head survives to see the complete battle, after his bodily death on the eighth day." - For better flow, I would delete the second and last commas here.
• "The third boon preserved in Tamil traditions, is found only in the folk rituals." - Commas like this one interrupt the flow with a half-stop. Reading the sentences out loud may help in deciding how to punctuate. Also, if you reduce this sentence to its essence, "Boon is found", you would not be tempted to write "Boon, is found".
• "In the version current in the Kuttantavar cult," - Better to specify a time rather than using "current". Perhaps "In the 21st-century version in the Kuttantavar cult... "?

It is an older tradition attested also in the last century. Current reflects the current status of the legend. I have replaced it with "In the Kuttantavar cult version" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The version current in Koovagam, additionally relates Krishna's mourning... ". - No comma. Also, another "current".
• "after which he returns to his original masculine form, for the duration of the war" - No comma.
• "The terukuttu performance presents a very stylised marriage, where Mohini leaves immediately after the ceremony, taken to signify the unconsummated nature of the marriage." - Awkward. Suggestion: "The terukuttu performance presents a stylised wedding ceremony followed by Mohini's abrupt departure, which is taken to signify that the marriage is unconsummated."
• "Another version, popular with the transsexuals, cites the reason behind Aravan's wish to be "coital bliss" and tells explicitly about consummation of the marriage" - Tighten by deleting "the" before "transsexuals"? Also, would to "enjoy" coital bliss be more accurate than to "be" coital bliss?

Though bliss suggests enjoyment, I do want to do original research by adding "enjoy".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• "This third, marriage boon is not... " - No comma.
• "The Kuttantavar cult resolves the first dilemma, holding that Aravan's body reconfigured itself after the sacrifice, Aravan then going on to die a heroic death on the eighth day of the war; and the Kuttantavar cult are not overly concerned about the second boon of Aravan's continued observation of the war." - Too complex.
• "holding that Aravan was able to watch the entire war, through the eyes of his severed head" - No comma.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up

Redtiger, I proofed down to the bottom and then started at the top again and worked my way down to where I had left off yesterday. I thus read your alterations from yesterday, and I caught a few things I had missed on the first round. Here are three more questions:

Aravan to Kuttantavar

• "A tradition local to Koovagam describes how Aravan came to be known as Kuttantavar." - Would "traditional story" be better than "tradition"?
• "Instead they focus on the demon Kuttacuran and a boon granted to him that he would be killed by a person having only a head, and who was born from water." - Is "boon" the correct word for a death promise like this? Does the demon desire this particular death? I usually think of "boon" as a blessing, something nice; that could be death, but is it in this case?

In Hindu mythology, often demons please the high gods, then ask for immortality, which is denied. So the demons then ask for immortality indirectly by asking for an impossible death. It is nice die at the hands of a person, who only has a head, almost impossible. Though the gods later find a way to kill the demon. Here Aravan has only a head, still kills the demon. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand now; the promise of immortality is the boon. Would it be helpful to revise the sentence slightly to say "... that he will gain immortality if he is killed by a person having only a head, and who was born from water"?

He is not directly asking immortality. He is asking for an impossible death. Directly giving for immortality as a boon is forbidden. If he is killed, he does not gain immortality, so the above reword is technically wrong. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to think about this some more, but suddenly I understand. Because the death seems impossible, the demon thinks it can't die, but this turns out to be incorrect. (The demon can't outwit the gods.) I'm still wondering if there is some way this idea could be neatly inserted into the text so that foreigners won't be confused about "boon". Maybe ""Instead they focus on the demon Kuttacuran and an apparently impossible boon granted to him that he will be killed by a person having only a head and who was born from water"? Finetooth (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked the ref again; it uses the word "boon" twice in this context. Also, the new wording is good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Kuttantavar cult rituals

• "The Koovagam festival sees alis, who call themselves Aravanis in this area, re-enact the marriage of Aravan with Mohini." - Since the festival can't literally see, would another word be better? This might do: "The Koovagam festival involves alis, who call themselves Aravanis in this geographic area and who re-enact the marriage of Aravan with Mohini."

Events do see things. "Pro billiards event sees launch of new game‎" [1], "SensofWine New York Event Sees Continuing Interest In New Italian Wines" [2]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that journalists who are trying to write headlines that fit the available space use the word that way. Another of my favorites is "gearing up", as in "Congress Gears Up for Budget Fight". This makes me imagine senators with cogs instead of arms. Anyway, I don't agree that events see things; they have no eyes. I'm not in love with my suggested substitute, "involves", either. Maybe "Alis, who call themselves Aravanis in this geographic area, take part in the Koovagam festival by re-enacting the marriage of Aravan and Mohini"? Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the ali, alis question on the FAC page, where it seemed to fit better than here. Finetooth (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a very good article, by the way, with wonderful illustrations. I'm sorry to have had to focus on commas. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote that formerly had [sic] in it is fine now. You are right that the author you are quoting made a mistake about "who" and "whom", but I think that Steve is right in suggesting that it will be more confusing than helpful to readers to add the correct spelling in brackets or [sic]. It's a judgment call, not a black-and-white issue, and not of great significance either way. Finetooth (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed sic as well as [m]. Please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Srivijaya / Javanese Traditions

The kingdom of Srivijaya was Buddhist, not Hindu. See its page, as well as Vajrayana Buddhism in Southeast Asia which I have used as a replacement for the original link.

At the least, the paragraph needs to be rephrased to make sense out of a Buddhist kingdom promoting Hindu culture in Java (where it *already* existed). Perhaps use both old (Hinduism on Java) and new links? Distinguish Srivijaya kingdom and Srivijaya dynasty (with its intermarriages).

There is no excuse for misidentifying Srivijaya, but a clearer explanation regarding how shifting its capital to Java influenced Mahabharata traditions is called for -- don't just revert! Martindo (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I rewrote the sentence to avoid misidentifying Srivijaya, and also to avoid confusion. ("Java ... partly practised Hinduism") Shreevatsa (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

animal sacrifice

"Formerly, goats and chickens were sacrificed; however, animal sacrifice is now banned by the state government." I believe this refers to the animal sacrifice ban enacted in 2002 and repealed in 2004. Thus the ban is is not in place any more. Can some please check what is the source for this and when it was written.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are from 1991, 1995, and 2002. I changed the word "formerly" to "traditionally" and "is now banned" to "has at times been banned". It would be great to have a Wikipedia article on the nature and meaning of this kind of animal sacrifice as well as some information about the ban and discussion around it. Do you know any good sources on this topic? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A few articles on the ban and its repeal (it was unpopular and the govt did a uturn after an election defeat) - [3][4][5][6]. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the banned part all together. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture Gallery

The picture up front of the page scared the bejesus out of me! There's a reason that pediophobia is common, folks. That face resides deep in the Uncanny Valley. And more than that, I don't see the need for it. The page describes what most of these statues look like, and considering the statues are severed heads, I feel their inclusion is detracting from the information here. I don't really think you need to delete them altogether, as some people might want to see them . . . But since there are three different iterations of the disturbing image, perhaps put this stuff at the bottom of the page in one of those "galleries" I see on other wikipedia pages. That way people who want to look at them can, and people like me don't have to have nightmares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.212.69 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Atharvaveda

Hi there, I see you refer to Arjuna's son, Iravan and don't make mention of an instance of the name used in the Atharvaveda. I quote it here:

Irāvān's offspring, Dhritarāshtra milked her, and from her udder drew forth only poison.

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av08010.htm

Dhritarāshtra's father is Veda Vyasa, the compiler of the Vedas and author of Mahabharata. Either he is calling himself Irāvān, or possibly he is referring to Dhritarāshtra as the offspring of aravam, a snake, which would explain why Viraj's udder "drew forth only poison".

My apologies for adding this text out of place. 99.235.162.164 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The name Iravan appears in the Atharvaveda, but the passage does not explicitly refer to Arjuna's son. [7] interprets that Iravan is a naga. Dhritarāshtra is mentioned as Iravan's son, which is not in sync with Mahabharata. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Reason for the story of Irawan's sacrifice mentioned ONLY in the Tamil version of Mahabharata??

Can someone please tell me why is it that the story of Irawan's sacrifice is mentioned ONLY in the Tamil version(s) of the Mahabharata? In other words, what is the main reason for introducing this "adulteration" in Ved Vyas' version? Did the "inventor" of the story of Irawan's sacrifice "like" the character of Irawan so much that a separate tale about his "sacrifice" had to be cooked up (or spun), such that Ved Vyas' version of the Mahabharata thus had to be "adulterated" as a result of it?

If each and every individual who studies the Mahabharata keeps "inventing" such tales related to these epics, simply to satisfy the liking of that person for that particular character, and also to satisfy the curiosity of the local population, then how is it ever possible to know what is "authentic" and what is "adulterated"?

Thanks. 59.184.141.8 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Historical development" discusses the influences. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thurston

I've just removed the Edgar Thurston source because he often got things wrong. I know that Alf Hiltebeitel cites him quite a lot, so I would suggest that if Hiltebeitel covers the relevant point then we use him (a much more modern and academic source) instead. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And now it has been reinstated but without any particular good reason? - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Castes and Tribes of Southern India is also co-authored by K. Rangachari; not Thurston alone. It is also a much-cited [8] book. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)