Talk:Ahalya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Source posting

This material was originally here. It looks useful for background in expanding the article, but is rather POV in its assertion that some interpretations of the story are false. See also previous version here. Tearlach 04:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tidied up the introduction. What should be done with the rest? It's still not neutral in that it's asserting the correctness of the particular version of the story endorsed at www.vedmandir.com. Tearlach 12:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I have no idea what the article is about, i'm just wikifying. I suggest if you know what its talking about, work on making it POV. (Opes 21:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

I have cleaned up the whole matter... now there is absolutely no problem with the article... March 7,2006 - Rahul

Misleading introduction

The header of the article needs some serious rework, especially the opening sentence. Ahalya is not "primarily known" for her extra-marital sexual encounter. The opening sentence gives a wrong impression of the article and highlights only one of many reasons for which Ahalya is known. Several texts describe the episode as one in which Ahalya is "tricked" by Indra who approaches her in the form of her husband Gautama. Ahalya is known for her service to Gautama, AND her following penance as a rock for ages, AND her redemption as Rama AND her reinstatement as a "Sati" woman, AND being among the "Panchkanyas", besides the liaison with Indra. Nmisra (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Reworded on basis of opening sentence of Mani ("Turned into stone by the curse of her husband, Gautama"), Goldman (glossary "wife of Gautama, cursed by her husband after being seduced by the god Indra"), Thames & Hudson("The wife of the seer Gautama, who was seduced by Indra disguised as Gautama") but "her reinstatement as a "Sati" woman" is view of some, but not of others who call her an adulteress. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be better to cite references for "patriarchical society", "condemnation as adulteress", "veiled deterrent", et cetera, I believe they are strong words and are better served with citations. About "condemnation as adulteress", all I could see was one 18th century Telugu rendition which is not equal to "patriarchical society" -> "some authors" or "some accounts" is a better word. Tale is considered as deterrent to women by Kelkar, not everybody, so that should be qualified as well. Quoting Rajan's poetry is giving too much space to one view, I am inclined to quote three original compositions by Tulasidasa from Kavitavali to support the other view. If you ask me, both "Modern renditions" and "assesment/interpretations and views" on Ahalya should be separate sections, rather than being mixed up all throughout the article. For example the Section "Encounter with Indra" should be limited to how various sources describe the encounter with Indra. Post-trauma syndrome, neurologist, Rama's double standards are not relevant to this section. Similarly modern "views" are out of place under "Name and literary development". "Stigmatized and despised" are strong words which need reference. Nmisra (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

1. All strong words have references at the end of line/para. All words in quotes are direct quotes of the author. No modifications.
2. Mukherjee, Kelkar, Bhattacharya, Srinivasan's discourse, Doniger (while discussing the Sri Lanka wedding ritual) describe her condemnation as adulteress, even though she was in most cases a rape victim. The adulteress is evident in all places where she sees through his disguise.
3. [1] as well as Bhattacharya talk about patriarchical myth-making
4. What is the other view of Tulasidasa from Kavitavali? The Ramacharitmanas is already quoted. Please elaborate. This article will definitely benefit by adding all perspectives of Ahalya. Rajan's poetry can be removed and summarized in the article like other ones.
5. Modern "views"/reditions are part of her literary journey so need to be in "Name and literary development". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Divinity of Rama in Bala Kanda, Rama's double standards, et cetera

Though the Bala Kanda does not explicitly refer to the divinity of Rama appears to be not NPOV. While there are differing opinions on Bala Kanda amongst scholars, use of words "taarayainaa.m" (1.49.11), "puujaarhe" (1.51.5), "puujita.h" (1.51.8). "raamasandarshanaat" (1.51.7), et cetera in the context of VR are taken by several tranlations and commentaries to refer to the divinity of Rama. Also in my view somebody's views on Rama is irrelevant to the article on Ahalya. Nmisra (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In context of Ahalya, the narrative in no way describes him as Vishnu the saviour as the other narratives tend to do. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes you thinks so? Use of the word "taaraya" (तारय) by Vishvamitra in 1.49.11 is a direct reference to saviour. This is "Nijanta" (णिजन्त) imperative usage - refer the meanings of "taaraNa" (तारण) and "taaraka" (तारक) in MW [2] to see meanings of "Nijanta" usage of the same root - the first meaning given by MW for both words is liberate and save with examples of Shiva and Vishnu. Whether Rama is described as Vishnu in this context is irrelevant to the article (in fact Ramcharitmanas describes Ram as even beyond Vishnu at multiple places), but he is definitely referred to as "liberator" and "saviour" of Ahalya by both Vishvamitra in 49th canto and by Shatananda in 51st canto of Balakanda in the Valmiki Ramayana. Nmisra (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Saviour - one who saves - by definition is not a god. A mortal prince honouring a fallen woman giving her back her social status is - by definition of the word - her saviour. Also please notice the word explicitly. In Ramacharitmanas, Rama=the Lord of Universe, the Saviour is explicit, but in Bala Kanda Ahalya episode, it may be hinted. Goldman acknowledges that divinity of Rama is hinted at in the Bala Kanda, but not in the same devotional fervour as Tulsi Das and other bhakti proponents. "The Bala episode in which Rama releases Ahalya...in hands of Tulsi Das...and other poets of the bhakti movement becomes the archetypal demonstration of the lord's saving grace-is in Valmiki handled with no reference to the divinity of the hero."--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Trickery versus Rape

More objections - she falls prey to his trickery, thus amounting to her rape and The Uttara Kanda states how Indra tricks Ahalya in having union with him by the disguise of Gautama, thus "raping" her. Some accounts describe Indra's act as a rape, some as trickery. In the accounts that describe the act as trickery, in some accounts Ahalya recognizes the trickery after Indra's proposal, in some she does not. But trickery does NOT imply rape - the union is not forced on her by the trickery. "amounting to rape" and "thus raping her" are illogical conclusions from the context of "disguise" and "trickery". This is not the definition of rape [3] [4]. Nmisra (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not conclusions by scholars, but the scriptures use the word rape. The Uttara Kanda uses the Sanskrit word for rape in the narrative. Also, in the Nahusha narrative, she is described to be raped. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, either I was not clear or you did not get me. I said "trickery does NOT imply rape" so "rape" is an illogical conclusion from "trickery" or "disguise". I already said above "some accounts describe the act as rape". To be doubly clear - accounts of trickery do not imply rape, and accounts of rape imply rape. This needs rewording. Nmisra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

[5] means "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person". "the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will" [6]. Ahalya was forced to have sex with Indra by his trickery against her will. Uttara Kanda uses the disguise motif as well as "rape" word. Apart from Bhattacharya and Uttara Kanda, [7] also says disguise trickery and rape together. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Uttar Kand uses only rape, and not rape and disgusie together. Please provide actual quotes and reference which "relies on primary source" (Valmiki Ramayan) and is not "original research". Please refer verse 7.30.30 (sā tvayā dharṣitā śakra kāmārtena samanyunā) and Gita Press's commentary (or any other translation or commentary) which uses "rape" (धर्षिता) but there is no reference to disguise. Disguise does not imply rape, its common sense. If Ahalya saw through the disguise, she committed adultery. If she did not, she believes it was her husband and was deceives. There is no third possibility, hence disguise does not imply rape. Nmisra (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bacchetta and Power do not cite any reference for their observation. They can be cited as a separated reference in the article, but they do not draw from primary sources. Nmisra (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Reworded. Adding Bacchetta and Power separately. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "raped or tricked" reads better and sounds accurate. Nmisra (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So this is settled, right? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your rewording makes it clear and unambiguous. Nmisra (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Ahalya

The double meaning of the name appears to be incorrect. Bhattacharya does not cite any source or dictionary, nor does he show derivation of the word in Sanskrit to mean "virgin". Given this, the comparison between Coitus and ploughing is probably innovative, maybe hilarious to some, but surely not the basis of deriving the meaning of a Sanskrit word for which "Vyutpatti" or "Nirukta" is the correct method. I am interested to know what the actual words are in the other references cited. For the record neither Monier Williams nor Apte in the meanings of the root "Hal", the word "Halya" or the word "Ahalya" list anything related to coitus. The only meaning of "Halya" given by Monier Williams which is not related to ploughing is a "deformity", and so "Ahalya" would mean without deformity, if not unploughable. I am inclined to put a "citation needed" or remove it altogether unless it is supported by evidence like a standard Sanskrit dictionary or Sanskrit derivation or citing a Sanskrit source, otherwise the double entendre appears to be the figment of imagination of Bhattacharya. Nmisra (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For starters, can somebody please confirm if the other two sources (Doniger and Feller) have "anything" to say about the above quoted "double meaning" of Ahalya, or if it was only based on Bhattacharya's article? If they do give the same double meaning, do they cite any meaning of the root "hal", any dictionary or Paninian derivation of "halya" or "ahalya", or any other Sanskrit source which relates Ahalya to the said double meaning? If not, this double meaning should be removed from the article. One can also check all the dictionaries under http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/. As I said above, I checked MW and Apte already and no such meaning exists. Nmisra (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bhattacharya, Doniger, Feller (who also cites Madeleine Biardeau for the meaning) all of them record the plough meaning. coitus = ploughing is referenced to Feller. FYI, the Kama sutra also uses coitus = ploughing. [8]. हल्य means ploughing, deformity [9] (Monier-Williams). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Either I was not clear enough or you did not get me. Meaning of a Sanskrit name as written on Wikipedia must be supported by "accepted standard sources". These sources could be - (1) Panini's definition or a Vyutpatti derived using Panini's method (2) Derivation using the Nirukta method of Yaska (3) Standard Sanskrit dictionaries like Amarkosha, Medinikosha, Apte, Monier Williams, et cetra. Bhattacharya, Doniger and Feller are NOT sources to be cited for Sanskrit meanings. Biardeau is NOT an authority on Sanskrit word meanings, she is an Indologist and translator, which does NOT make her an accepted standard source in this context. Daniélou is NOT an acceptible source either. Having said that, here is what "standard" references and dictionaries say. Panini's Dhatupatha gives only one meaning of the root "hal" (हल्) by saying "hala vilekhane" (हल विलेखने) [10] (1.971). MW translates "vilekhana" as used as Dhatupatha to "the act of making an incision or mark or furrow" [11]. Nothing related to making love. Panini's reference should settle the question once and for all, there is no further need of exploring. Still, I checked Apte and MW for the root, only one meaning is given which is same as Panini's Dhatupath. I further checked up the word "halya" (हल्य). Apte gives two meaning as "Arable, to be ploughed", and "Ugly and deformed". The Hindi version (1987 reprint, page 1168) of Apte makes it even clearer by translating the second meaning as "kuruupa, vik.rtaak.rti" (कुरूप, विकृताकृति) - "ruupa" means beauty and "kuruupa" means ugly as in "not beautiful", no other sense. Monier Williams gives five meanings of "halya", four related to ploughing and agriculture, and the last meaning is "deformity". [12] Amply clear that "halya" is noway related to sex or coitus. "Ahalyaa" as a name means "not ugly or deformed, in other words beautiful". FYI this is the meaning given by Murthy at the end of this page [13] Your Kama Sutra reference is untenable. The only place I found ploughable in the book in the Google Book preview was in a translation which mentions village people calling some girls "kar.sa.na haalikaa" (कर्षण हालिका) - firstly this consists of two roots "k.r.s" (कृष्) and "hala" (हल्) in which the first root has multiple and stonger meanings; secondly a comment on terminology used by village people in a Sanskrit commentary on Kama Sutra written in post-Gupta period is not an "accepted standard source" - innuendos being used village people in common parlance at some time in the post-Gupta period do not change meanings of Sanskrit words - FYI the meanings have not changed since Panini's grammar. If you meant what is called the Ploughing position, it would be a technical term used by Vatsyayana just like names of many animals and birds being used in name of postures by Svatmarama in Hatha Yoga Pradipika. Use as a technical term in a specif context by an author does not change the meaning of a Sanskrit word. In short, please cite standard references like Panini, Apte and Monier Williams to support the said double meaning. If standard sources do not give the double meaning of Ahalya as stated, it is creative imagination by Bierdeau or Daniélou and should be deleted from Wikipedia and I am willing to do the honours. If standard sources do give the stated double meaning, I would be more than happy to let it stay. Nmisra (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record here is Valmiki's only meaning, is derived from the root using Nirukta - the standard method of deriving meanings of words used in Vedas for which Panini's technique is insufficient. Refer VR, 7.30.19-7.30.21 so'haṃ tāsāṃ viśeṣārthaṃ striyamekāṃ vinirname । yadyatprajānāṃ pratyaṅgaṃ viśiṣṭaṃ tattaduddhṛtam ॥ tato mayā rūpaguṇairahalyā strī vinirmitā । halaṃ nāmeha vairūpyaṃ halyaṃ tatprabhavaṃ bhavet ॥ yasyā na vidyate halyaṃ tenāhalyeti viśrutā । ahalyetyeva ca mayā tasyā nāma prakīrtitam ॥ Partial translation from Gita Press - "hala" means ugliness (vairūpya) and "halya" means the reprehension born out of ugliness. She who does not have "halya" is "Ahalya". Both meanings given in the Wikipedia article for the name of Ahalya are wrong. The unploughable meaning does not apply and the virgin meaning is not supported by any standard reference. Nmisra (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You can not use Apte, Panini, Monier-Williams (WP:PRIMARY sources which Wikipedia does not recommend). Wikipedia recommends secondary sources, "which rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them". There are many other references that not + ploughing meaning [14] [15] . Women are traditionally equated to fields that are ploughed and sowed by a husband in Hindu literature [16]. Halya is NOT literally coitus, but ploughing (a literal meaning of halya) are been traditionally equated to coitus in literature and interpret it the "without ploughing meaning". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What? You are saying I cannot cite a dictionary for a word meaning????? Please point out where Wikipedia defines a dictionary as a primary source and books as a secondary source in the context of word meanings? Under WP:PRIMARY, primary and secondary sources are defined in context of events, not for word meanings. I do not know what Wikipedia policy is, but I guess dictionaries are the *only* standard source for a word meaning, especially Sanskrit meanings. You can correct me if I am wrong. Even if one were to admit that Apte, MW, etc are "primary sources" and writings of people you quoted are "secondary source" for the "meaning of a Sanskrit word", then NONE of the sources you cite on meaning of Ahalya "rely on the primary source" (quote a dictionary or use a Paninian method) to derive a meaning, so they are by definition "original research" and not "reliable secondary sources". Murthy is a secondary source which relies on a primary source to give the meaning of Ahalya as beautiful, hence it is a reliable secondary source. Please cite a reliable secondary source, with actual quotes, for the meaning of Ahalya which is derived from primary sources and not original research. If you cannot cite a reliable primary or secondary source for meaning of Ahalya, please accept that no such source exists. Your ploughing references are irrelevant because they are not in the context of meaning of Ahalya, so please do not cite them in support for meaning of Ahalya. The fact is Ahalya has no meaning related to ploughing as Valmiki and Murthy confirm, it is a shame this is turning to be an edit war rather than a rational dicsussion on Wikipedia. Nmisra (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing is for a Sanskrit word there are plenty of meanings. It is not our prerogative to choose the right meaning. Your edit on 18th May harmonizes both the meanings and is referenced, however, some changes were needed. Murthy is "is an officer in Syndicate Bank, a public sector bank in India", with no proved expertise in Sanskrit and the other reference is enough, so removed Murthy. "Srimad Valmikiya Ramayana" is good but needs a page number, where the relevant shloka and Hindi meaning is given. "These authors do not give a Sanskrit derivation" is not the case and would be original research. The secondary sources use the derivation a (not) + halya (ploughing). However, they equate ploughing and coitus. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back :). Sanskrit words have multiple valid meanings, agreed, but the ploughing=making love meaning is not supported by either Panini or standard dictionaries - so I am leaving the prerogative to Panini, Apte, Monier Williams. Page numbers have been added for Gita Press's VR reference. Murthy being an officer in a PSU does not say anything about his credentials, and having translated six Kandas of the VR, he is as credible, if not more, a source as Bhattacharya, Doniger, Feller, et cetera. I think the Murthy reference can stay, but I will not add it again myself. While defining their meaning, the recent authors do not give a Sanskrit reference or derivation for the root "hal" to mean making love, while Valmiki gives a Nirukta derivation for Ahalya. I think it is an important distinction, but if having it in the article tantamounts to original research, I can either add the original quotes of the author in the references or add a reference to Panini's Dhatupatha - both of which would not be OR. Nmisra (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bhattacharya, Doniger, Feller are peer-reviewed authors/scholars; Murthy is not. No author says that halya explicitly means sex; they treat it as an implicit meaning. Dictionaries give only explicit meanings, not implicit or interpreted meaning. Do you any objections to the current paragraph about the name "Ahalya" which harmonizes both the views? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No more issues. Thanks. The current version harmonizes the traditional Sanskrit meaning and the view of the modern authors. Nmisra (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sita, not Kunti

Panchkanya includes Sita and not Kunti. I have changed and added the reference. The verse quoted earlier also had mistakes in spelling and grammar which I have corrected. Nmisra (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be two versions of the Shloka. Mukherjee, Bhattacharya (who cites the Oriya tradition and the Brahmanda Purana), Devika, Markendeya Purana,[17],[18],[19]. As per [20], Bengali as well as Oriya versions of the shloka while South Indian versions have Sita in it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

extra-"martial"

Pretty sure that what was intended was extra-'marital' and not extra-'martial'. This appears in the front page (did you know) as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, it's been fixed after Materialscientist saw it too. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tribhangi

Rambhadracharya states this to be the reason behind the use of the "Tribhangi" (meaning the destroyer of the three) metre used by Tulsidas in the verses which form Ahalya's praise of Rama – this being the only use of the Tribhangi metre in the entire epic. It is in some detail but it is relevant. What is the definition of too much detail as per Wikipedia policy? IMHO even the original poem of Rajan is too much detail, the essence or translation is enough. Nmisra (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Rambhadracharya giving the three meanings is important to Ahalya's story. On what basis is more applicable to the commentary of the Ramacharitmanasa, rather than the Ahalya narrative. The fact may be included in a note. You can summarize the meaning of Rajan and remove the text. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mahabhaga

The second meaning was referenced so why was it removed? "Mahaabhaagaa"'s Sandhi in context of Ahalya is explained by Rambahdracharya (2006) as "mahaa" + "abhaagaa". The word has both meanings "mahad bhaaga.m yasyaa.h saa" and "mahad abhaagam yasyaa.h saa". I can attach snapshots of the page if you need more proof than reference but please do not remove material which is sourced. Judgements being made on limited knowledge of Sanskrit would amount to original research. Nmisra (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You might know that the word "mahabhaga" is used throughout Sanskrit literature to address someone with respect, always meaning "illustrious, fortunate one" - a meaning all dictionaries, besides Bhattacharya give. The "mahaa" + "abhaagaa" meaning is given by none. How does Rambahdracharya explain the change of meaning in the context of Ahalya? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, it seems you do not know as much Sanskrit as is needed to make the statements like the one above. The "Maha" + "abhaagaa" is a completely valid Sandhi decomposition, and the meaning of "abhaaga" is the opposite of that of "bhaagaa". Furthermore FYI Rambhadracharya is not only a PhD and DLitt in Sanskrit grammar, but also a commentator on Panini's grammar in Sanskrit. Anyway, here is the actual quote in the context of the verse 1.49.12 (तारयैनां महाभागामहल्यां देवरूपिणीम्) of the VR. एक तो महाभागाम्. महाभागां माने इसका सीधा सा उत्तर है, यदि आप कहें कि महाभागां माने महाभाग्यशालिनी, तो उसको तारने की क्या आवश्यकता है, तब क्यों तारा जाए. तो कहा महाभागा. अरे, वहाँ खण्ड करो - महा अभागां, ये बहुत दुर्भाग्यशालिनी महिला है - महत् अभागं यस्याः सा, जिसका बहुत बड़ा अभाग्य है, हे सरकार. दुर्भाग्य को सौभाग्य में आप ही बदल सकते हैं, मेरे राघव, तारय, अतः इसे तारिए. Whatever the outcome be, I think material that is sourced should be first discussed without arbitrarily removing. I have now qualified it as Rambhadracharya gives the meaning, which should be unambiguous. Nmisra (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And again I request, please do not remove sourced material without resolving this discussion. Wikipedia:ONESOURCE is for "Articles with a single source" and not for "a sentence with a single source in an article with multiple sources". Nmisra (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No one said that the decomposition was invalid. The point is no one else (Wikipedia:Fringe theories, linked WP:ONESOURCE by mistake), including Goldman, Bhattacharya, Devika in context of Ramayana OR Sanskrit dictionaries in general give that meaning. Mahabhaga is so common in Sanskrit literature to address a noble man or woman. The mahabhaga epithet is also used to describe Sita in Sundara kanda (sarga 57) as well as in Bala Kanda in the shloka "Iyam Sita mama suta..." (sometimes used in Hindu weddings) spoken by Janaka giving away the hand of Sita to Rama. What Sita "extremely unfortunate" to wed Rama? Valmiki calls her as mahabhaga, followed by the description "as lovely as a goddess"; Rama saw mahabhaga, "blazing with inner splendour through her austerities". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The decomposition mahā + abhāgā is given by the Rambhadracharya only in context of Ahalya. The decomposition is not given for the word at other places or in the context of other characters. With the inclusion of quotes and "However ...", it reads balanced now. The sandhi split can be confirmed here [21] (second result). I am not sure if an interpretation of a word, which is supported by rules of a language, can be called as a fringe theory. Even if it does, if there is no undue weight on the idea and the idea connects with the article in a serious and coherent manner, it may be included in a mainstream article. Even views of Rashtra Sevika Samiti on Ahalya are probably fringe, but they are not promoted, nor are they given undue weight, and they relate to the article coherently. If view of a single author can be qualified as fringe, so is Madhavan's story about being beaten up and revived by a neurologist Rama - but again they are not being promoted, given undue weight, et cetera. That is my opinion. Nmisra (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the language (Chinese is quite enough thank you :) ) but having copyedited the article I have to agree with Nmisra that no undue weight is given to potentially fringe theories. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. The issue is settled then. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ahalya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

"The scholar Söhnen-Thieme feels that this Kaushika is the same individual described as cursing Indra in the Mahabharata." This doesn't feel like it fits here; tie it in better with more context, move it elsewhere or possibly remove it.

It is an important fact that connects the Kaushika of the Vedas to the Kaushika of the Mahabharata.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Sun (Indra) taking away the shade of night (Ahalya)" How is Ahalya connected to the shade of night? Not clear.

Indra = Sun. Ahalya = night. the sex = taking away the shade. It is an allegory after all. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So there isn't any part of the scriptures etc surrounding this story that link Ahalya more directly with the night, or Indra with the sun?Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Kumarila Bhatta is one of the best known commentators on the scriptures. So his interpretation is note-worthy, also the interpretation is found in other refs. Some online ones: [22] [23] Indra is essentially regarded as a solar deity (see Aditya). Maybe this is why Kumarila Bhatta linked Indra to the Sun. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Need some explanation for what Chandra Rajan is.

Sanskrit scholar and poet. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"In the Sadvimsha Brahmana, Indra assumes the form of the Brahmin Kaushika and visits her" - does this text describe the real Kaushika in any way -i.e. as living with Ahalya etc?

Kaushika is not explicitly called her husband, but it is hinted in the scripture and can be deduced says Söhnen-Thieme. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that some of my edits were reverted back, many without explanation. I have the sense it was possibly inadvertently done by making your edits from an older version of the article. Have a look at the changes I have just made now and rather than revert them back, please comment here on how/why you would like them changed if that's the case, so we can come to an agreement about the clearest way to explain the content there. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

comments in edit summary. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The reversions you made don't quite resolve the clarity issues that led me to alter them in the first place. To be specific: 1) "Allusions to her birth by Brahma are also found in the Vishnudharmottara Purana." - this doesn't fit here, because you go back and forth between talking about Ahalya's birth as natural and her birth as a creation of Brahma. Examples of these two types of creation should be grouped together. Please revise this. 2)"After her marriage to Gautama, Ahalya settles into his ashram (hermitage) near Mithila, where they practise ascetics together for several years." Again, the narrative is broken up. It makes sense to state the fact of her marriage and then talk about what happened after her marriage (i.e. practicing ascetics). The way you have it currently, this fact is "tacked on" and is not well integrated into the narrative. Please find a way to incorporate the information in a logical way or leave it out. 3)"Another version of the Brahma Purana tells that the question of Ahalya's marriage was determined through a contest." This is vague and hard to conceptualize for the reader who doesn't already know the backstory, which is why I sought to specify the participants. I would recommend that you state "through an open contest", which would allow the reader to visualize many possible participants, of which you only discuss two. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Please edit for consistent use of dashes: word - word or word—word etc

Removed &mdash. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is some overlinking. Link only on the first use in the lead and the first use in the body.

Done. Hope I didn't miss any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you have a space in the references/footnotes after p. or pp. and also fix so pp. is used whenever there are multiple pages and p. for single pages

Done. Hope I didn't miss any. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to be consistent regarding italicization. The names of books and scriptures should be consistently italicized (or put in quotes), whereas foreign words really only need to be italicized on the first use. Let me know what your system is and make sure it's consistent throughout the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. Just a few changes to make, then this will be ready to go. Well done! Lemurbaby (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahalya as a stone

This is just a small point, but probably worth picking up on. The article currently says:

"In the popular retelling of the legend in later works as well as in stage enactments and film and television productions, Ahalya is turned to stone by a curse and only returns to her human form after she is brushed by Rama's foot."

I'm not sure "popular retelling" is an entirely accurate description, because it isn't just 'popular' works which have this version. Classical Tamil poetry has Ahalya turning into a stone - see Paripāṭal 19:51-52. Kamban's irāmāvatāram has the legend in that version too. A.K. Ramanujan discusses Kamban's version in some detail in his "Three Hundred Ramayanas" (pp. 28-33). How about "In vernacular tellings of the legend, as well as in modern stage enactments and film....", adding a reference to Ramanujan in the footnote? The details of the Kamba Ramayana's version are in a later section, so I don't think we'll necessarily need more detail here. -- Arvind (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is a retelling also seen in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa, which does not qualify as vernacular. Since the stone curse is popular (backed , it is called "popular retelling" (popular is adjective of retelling, not works). The sentence does not say "In the retelling of the legend in later popular works", which is the way it is interpreted above. Ramanujan's book is used as a ref for the Kamban version in "Medieval vernacular versions". I have added the link you found in the reference. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on prose (continued from 2nd PR)

• "and its consequences, form the central narrative" — Awkward comma; could remove it or else recast sentence.
  • Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "adulteress" — Don't know why this is linked: it's a mere dictionary definition, not a specialised/topic-specific term.
  • topic-specific. Wrong connotations of adultery are examined. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Bhil Ramayana" — Please clarify: ref title seems to indicate that it means that the Bhils have their own version of the Ramayana; if so, can make this more clear. Is the formal title of the version "Bhil Ramayana", or do the Bhils just call it "Ramayana"? Is "Bhil Ramayana" used in the sources?
  • Bhils have their own version of Ramayana. It is called Bhil Ramayana or Ramayana of the Bhils. Bhil Ramayana seems to accomododate all POVs.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Brahmanas: hints of relationship with Indra" — Missing italics, definite/indefinite article. Should be "The Brahmanas: hints of a relationship with Indra".
• "so-called" — Don't know why this is needed: if it's referred to that in the ref, then the fact that it was referred to as such is self-evident. If it is not a noteworthy coinage used in a reliable source, than it shouldn't be here. See Wikipedia:WTA#Expressions_of_doubt.
  • "subrahmanya formula" is a modern coinage by scholars, found in many references, but the term is not used in ancient scriptures.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• ""lover of Ahalya ... O Kaushika, Brahman (Brahmin), who calls himself Gautama" — does "(Brahmin)" appear in the original quote as printed in the ref? If not (was added by Wikipedia), needs to be in brackets, not parentheses.
  • Brahman is the original Sanskrit, which is corrupted in English as Brahmin. The reference also says so. Would it be OK replacing Brahman with Brahmin for consistency?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See MOS:QUOTE. Direct quotes shouldn't be altered unless the (minimal) changes/notations are clearly indicated by brackets. Not sure what you mean by "[t]he reference also says so": are you saying that there's merely a footnote or something in the source that explains the corruption, or that "... Kaushika, Brahman (Brahmin), who calls ..." is, letter by letter, what appears in the source? I still don't know if the "(Brahmin)" bit appears in the source or not. If not (i.e., you added it), it needs to be changed to "... O Kaushika, Brahman [Brahmin], who calls ...". Can also use "... O Kaushika, [Brahmin], who calls ..." or somethingh similar. Adding a footnote about the corruption to this page could also be useful. Your call. Saravask 12:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "research associate" — should unlink dictionary definitions like this per WP:OVERLINK.
  • Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Puru dynasty" — not sure if "d" should be majuscule or not (not seeing anything relevant in MOS:CAPS); could ask at WP:RD/L, WT:MOSCAPS, or some other help desk/page.
  • No 1 convention --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "(undated oral tradition)" — this should be moved up two sections to accompany the first occurrence of the name "Bhil Ramayana". Also, can change parenthetical to ", an undated oral tradition," clause. Too many parentheses interrupt flow and can make the text look jarring and ugly. Article could stand to lose many of them.
• "It further tells that" — Awkward use of "tell"; could just be "It states that".
  • Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "(heaven, earth, and the underworld)" — Rest of article avoids use of serial commas, so should stick to one style throughout by removing the comma after "earth". Else, could keep it and add a couple bajillion commas throughout the rest of the article to make it consistent the other way.
  • Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "circumambulated" — Need to bypass redirect at "Pradakshina".
  • Actually Pradakshina was an article till December. Didn't realize it turned into a redirect. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In all versions of the tale, Ahalya settles into Gautama's ashram (hermitage) after her marriage to him, which generally becomes the site of her epic curse." — Should be more like: "In all versions of the tale, after marrying Gautama, Ahalya settles into his ashram (hermitage), which generally becomes the site of her epic curse." Otherwise, meaning is confused because "which" seems to refer to the marriage, not the ashram.
  • Done
• "couple practise" — Should be "couple practises".
• "while Skanda Purana" — Needs definite article: "while the Skanda Purana".
• "Brahma Vaivarta Purana" — Same as above.

After these points are replied to, can add more (tomorrow or later this week) if needed. Prose reads much better than before. Saravask 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Addressed. Waiting for more... --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Prose issues (continued from above)

Note: there may be multiple instances of each issue; if the points of advice below are taken, apply them globally rather than just making spot changes.

• "the Ahalya's seduction" -- remove "the"
• "one of few texts" -> "one of the few texts"
• "Puranas" -- italicise "Puranas" and other composition titles per MOS:TITLE
• "her of all guilt" -- Not a big deal, but are filler words like "all" necessary?
  • Sometimes, a person be may be considered partly guilty for a crime.
• "The Uttar Kanda recasts the tale as Ahalya's rape by Indra." -> "In the Uttar Kanda, Indra rapes Ahalya." Brevity is best.
• "reminds Indra's guru Brihaspati how" -> "reminds Brihaspati, Indra's guru, how"
• "tells that" -> "states that,"
• "Her fake husband" -> "Indra"
  • "Her fake husband reminds her that her first duty is serve him." The duty of Ahalya was to serve her husband, not Indra. Changes meaning.
• "Sometimes" is a bit informal for the encyclopedic register; "At times", "On occasion", or "Occasionally" are better. Not as big a deal as the other points, however.
• "cock, who crows" -> "cock that crows"
• "18th century" -> "18th-century". In the PR, you were incorrect in stating that WP:CENTURY allows using the attributive compound modifier "18th-century" as an unhyphenated adjective. Please read MOS:HYPHEN, and read it carefully. That is the relevant guideline here, not WP:CENTURY, which doesn't even discuss attributive hyphenation.
• "... Madurai Nayak Dynasty or uses another god, ..." -> "... Madurai Nayak Dynasty. In other versions, he uses another god, ...". Clarify meaning by splitting this and other inordinately long and confusing sentences.
• "another god, who does the job as in the case of Indra's accomplice, the the moon-god Chandra in the Bhil Ramayana." -> "he uses an accomplice, such as the moon-god Chandra, to distract Gautama ". Again, this is one of several confusing and convoluted sentences I now see sprinkled throughout the text.

The more carefully I read an article—and it is taking inordinate amounts of time to work through even one section, because reading for enjoyment and reading for prose issues are, sadly, wholly different activities—the more "issues" I find with its prose. I recommend first sorting out more content- and semantics-related concerns, such as the excellent points raised by Fowler&fowler in the FAC. Because tedious prose fixes tend to become speedily undone in the face of content-focused rewrites, applying all WP:MOS guidelines diligently and globally, which the above points attempt to do, is secondary. Otherwise, copy-editing work is repeatedly duplicated. I recommend checking out User:Tony1#My self-help writing tutorials. Saravask 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Will check. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Review continued (part III)

Again, solely prose issues.

• "Vishwamitra" — I'm curious why it's not "Vishvamitra"; is the former the most commonly encountered form in the relevant literature? If not, should the article use a single system of transliteration (IAST or whatever) consistently? It is used at the beginning of the next section.
  • Vishwamitra[24] is common in Indian English. But Vishvamitra is used too. Changed to Vishvamitra for consistency.
• "By contrast, the Mahabharata" — Italicise "Mahabharata": it's a composition title.
• "the Ramayana" — Same. Italicise "Ramayana".
  • Done.
• "narrates that" -> "states that"
• '(derived from "brave", who confronts Gautama)' -> '(derived from "brave" and meaning "he who confronts Gautama")'
• '(derived from "tree", who climbs a tree)' — Same. Awkward comma splice needs to be fixed.
• '(derived from "thief" or "rock", who hides like a thief behind a large rock)' — Same.
  • All three: the boy confronts Gautama. So he is named "brave". Changed.
• "Another variant replaces the liaison with the theme of Ahalya obtaining the children as a boon from Indra as result of her penance and worship of the god, legitimising the birth of the children." — Cumbersome. Clearer: "In another variant, the liaison is replaced by penance and worship offered by Ahalya to Indra, who gifts her the children as a reward."
• "Ahalya...in" is this a precise character-by-character transcription from the source? Otherwise, ellipses should be spaced per MOS:ELLIPSES: "[p]ut a space on each side of an ellipsis".
• "in the verse" -> "in verse"
  • "in the verse" is right in "in the verse 1.49.12". I am not sure which "in the verse" is referred to.

I meant the one preceding "1.49.12". If the phrases "in the chapter one" or "in the section 1.4" (as opposed to "in the first chapter", etc) are incorrectly formulated, then why would the extra definite article of "in the verse 1.49.12" be necessary? It isn't. Saravask 06:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems remain, though fewer than before. If needed, can review another section or two (the last one as well as the third from last) later. Saravask 06:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Review (final points)

• "Sanskrit Transliteration" — No need to capitalise second word. Just as with all these points, all prose, headings, and labels/captions needs to be checked, not just this example. In this case, they need to consistently use sentence case.
• "asks "Are" -> "asks, "Are"
• "each has "known" a man" -> "each has 'known' a man" — See MOS:QUOTE#Quotations_within_quotations.
• "Indian social reformer Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay was perplexed by the inclusion of Ahalya and Tara in the panchakanya, because they exhibited sexual behaviours that were considered to be non-ideal and later deemed "unethical" by social norms." -> "Because they exhibited sexual behaviours that were considered to be non-ideal and later deemed "unethical" by social norms, Indian social reformer Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay was perplexed by the inclusion of Ahalya and Tara in the panchakanya."
• "behaviours that were considered to be non-ideal and later deemed "unethical" by social norms, Indian social reformer" — But "considered" by whom? What/when is "later"? Redundant "social" should be changed or removed. Something like "behaviours that were non-ideal and even unethical according to traditional norms, Indian social reformer" would be better and more concise.
• "has blemished her" — Remove "has".
• "asks "So is it right" -> "asks, "So is it right" — See, for example, this for details.
• "(Indian/Hindu)" — Is this found in the original quote? If not, need brackets instead of parentheses per MOS:QUOTE.
• "Like Bhattacharya, Kelkar, author of" — Who/what is "Kelkar"? Nowhere above has he been introduced/mentioned, so first name is needed here.
• "adds another reason" -> "adds that another reason" — Overall, the entire sentence is convoluted, but please at least fix this.
• "from the epics" — Which epics? Ahalya-related epics? Hindu epics in general? Please specify.
• "Alcmene in the form" -> "Alcmene by assuming the form"
• "enactments, as well" -> "enactments as well"
• "An Ahalya-tirtha is" -> "One site widely regarded as the Ahalya-tirtha is"
• "Another Ahalya-tirtha is" -> "Another candidate Ahalya-tirtha site is"
  • 2 points above: There is no "widely regarded" Ahalya-tirtha. There are 2 Ahalya-tirthas, both of which claim to be the place of Ahalya's penance and redemption. How do I handle this? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. You could try changing

"An Ahalya-tirtha is located near the Ahalyeshvara Temple in Bhalod, on the banks of the Narmada. Another Ahalya-tirtha is located in Darbhanga district, Bihar."

to

Two sites are widely held to be the Ahalya-tirtha. One is located near Ahalyeshvara Temple in Bhalod, on the banks of the Narmada; another is located in Darbhanga district, Bihar.

The "widely held" would then be understood to mean that a substantial group of people/experts/etc consider the tirtha to be in the first place, and that another group (roughly equal in size to the first) accords the same status to the second site.

• "nymphs (apsara)" — Match plurals: "nymphs (apsaras)". Even better would be "nymphs, or apsaras", which would get rid of a set of obtrusive and unnecessary parentheses. Could even just use "nymphs": already linked to Apsara previously, under "Creation and marriage".
• "(and Hindu society's)" — Again, was this added to the quote? If so, needs brackets, not parentheses.
• "writes that the scriptures are responsible for promoting immoral ways, where gods like Indra exploit chaste wives like Ahalya, and asks" — Could flow better: "writes that the scriptures, by depicting gods such as Indra who exploit chaste wives such as Ahalya, are responsible for promoting immoral ways; she asks".
• "Ramayana adaptations where" -> "Ramayana adaptations in which"
• "Uyir maga" — Should maga be capitalised? MOS:CT says use title case for English-language titles, but says nothing about non-English ones. Hence, though not sure on this point, I'd say capitalise it unless the source(s) mostly don't.
• "poetic drama called Ahalya in the Kannada language" -> "Kannada-language poetic drama called Ahalya" — Also, list items in this sentence could be better separated by semicolons rather than commas, as the items themselves are relatively long/complex.
• "1900–76" — For consistency, the article should either use only shortened ranges (i.e., shortening "1900–1976" to "1900–76") or else remove all of them.
• "fury, as well as" -> "fury as well as"
• "as a tragic heroine, who" -> "as a tragic heroine who"
• "innocent Ahalya, who sleeps" -> "innocent Ahalya who sleeps"
• "was described as still relevant in the 21st century" — Would be better (per WP:PRECISELANG, more or less) to give the year rather than a period of time that spans a hundred years.
• "free-spirited woman, who dares" -> "free-spirited woman who dares"
• "pupil of the art professor, Gautama, and" -> "pupil of an art professor named Gautama, and"
• "defends her decision to her husband" -> "defends this decision against her husband's criticisms."
• "modern setting, where" -> "modern setting, wherein"
• "in concurrent setting" — "[C]oncurrent" with what? Better: "in a contemporary setting".
• "their affair, despite punishments imposed upon them by the king, Ahalya's jealous husband" -> "their affair despite being punished by the king, who is Ahalya's jealous husband"

Great to see such unusual persistence in smoothing out the prose in such an unusually interesting article. Because I've just helped with the article, I won't vote in the second FAC; nevertheless, best of luck with landing the star. Cheers. Saravask 08:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your thorough review. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of links

The automated peer reviewer on the toolserver has helped me notice that the article is a bit sparse in terms of the number of links. I've put in a few in the lead, but more are needed in the main body - I may work on this later, but others are invited to do so also! Allens (talk | contribs) 11:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too. But the automated peer reviewer gives the suggestion if less than 3% of the words are linked. But in a long article like this, words are repetitive. IMO, we should stick to Wikipedia:MOS#Overlinking_and_underlinking guideline. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But words aren't repetitive in the lead, and links in the lead are generally considered separately from those in the body for things like duplications. Moreover, repetitive words are taken care of in terms of linking by the guideline to not repeat links. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... You are right. Things like Prāyaścitta, chastity (I should have linked these) etc. are needed, but links like beauty or narrative are not needed IMO as they are too common words. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see that argument; I was probably a bit excessive, although in some cases I was going off of whether the linked article had a discussion of the religious/mythological/etc aspects of its subject. Archetype is one that I'd say needs to be linked. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Subrahmanya formula and Murugan

Is there any relationship between these? I note Subrahmanya as being one of Murugan's names. Allens (talk | contribs) 16:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No relation.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Allens' comments

• Currently, this makes it look like halya means "arable, ploughed" OR "ploughing and ugliness" OR "deformity"; I'm sufficiently uncertain as to the meaning as to make it hard for me to clarify this
  • Dictionaries give the meaning as:
    • Arable
    • Ploughed or ploughing
    • ugliness or deformity
  • The relevant meaning of the word can be inferred by the context. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Unploughed field & dried up stream/stone?

I'm wondering if any reliable source has made a connection between the "unploughed field" interpretation of her name and the curses of a dried-up stream or a stone? Allens (talk | contribs) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Etymology": Tagore links "unploughed field" to stone. Söhnen relates dried-up stream to dried up body in Padma Purana.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That isn't very clear from the Etymology section currently (that some sources theorize it as linked to the curse). Allens (talk | contribs) 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Tagore relates "unploughed" more to the redemption. The stony, barren land been cultivated by Rama. How can we improve this? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Second to last sentence in the Etymology section: "and that was made cultivable by Rama's breaking the ?petrifying? curse". Not sure on whether "petrifying" works; what does Tagore use in this area? Allens (talk | contribs) 18:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagore does not explicitly refer to the curse in this context. He treats the legend as an allegory. Tagore's poems about Ahalya also do not talk about the stone curse, but rather focus on the Ramayana curse. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

1st paragraph

How about adding (rough draft to get discussion moving) "She was seduced – or perhaps raped – by Indra, cursed by her husband for infidelity, and saved from the curse by the avatar Rama." to the first paragraph? Allens (talk | contribs) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Many ______ (scriptures/legends) describe that she was seduced by Indra, the king of the gods, cursed by her husband for infidelity, and saved from the curse by the god Rama" or "by Rama, the avatar of the god Vishnu".--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with "Many Hindu scriptures describe that she was seduced by Indra (the king of the gods), cursed by her husband for infidelity, and saved from the curse by Rama (an avatar of the god Vishnu)." Allens (talk | contribs) 17:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems good. Just changed some links. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "redeemed from the curse"? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Redeem is used with sin, not curse. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... well she wasnt saved also. She was a stone for sometime. Her punishment was just cut short. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's included as one of the two possibilities the sentence allows for - saving from the curse's continuation. Allens (talk | contribs) 18:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"liberated from the curse"? Liberation from the curse is common usage in Mani, Vettam (not for Ahalya entry in particular). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That works. Allens (talk | contribs) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ahalya Indravalokan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahalya Indravalokan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahalya Indravalokan.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

• Negation: Using the Sanskrit Uttara Ramayana or pure translation (without commentary) are primary sources. Why are noted dictionaries are not WP:RS for etymology and a- prefix?
  • Wilson: clearly says negation of halya (plough)
  • [books.google.com/books?id=qcoUFYOX0bEC&pg=PA19&dq=halya+negation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B8d6UdruB43JrAe3xYGgBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ A concise dictionary of Indian philosophy] negation of halya (deformity, ugliness)
  • Feller p. 124: Ahalya is derived from halya/hala
  • The Concise Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki By Vālmīki, Swami Venkatesananda a: without, halya: flaw
  • [25] Apsara in Indian art and literature: Ahalya = A-halya; halya (blemish) so without blemish
  • [26] "Should not the name A-halya be reinterpreted more specifically to mean the land which is •un-ploughable' (from 'hala' — meaning a 'plough') ?"
• Recent authors include Bhattachrya, Doniger and Feller: "This fits the context of the character Ahalya, who is viewed as being in one way or another beyond Indra's reach." Feller and Doniger use a virgin or a motherly figure. Why should views of these notable authors be removed and only a controversial Doniger's name be retained. The "ploughing metaphor" where ploughing is an euphemism for coitus is widespread. This was discussed before Talk:Ahalya#Meaning_of_Ahalya. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)