Talk:Ganesha drinking milk miracle

untitled post
(In case you wondered, the expansion it had from stub status made it eligble.) - Mgm|(talk) 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I Want To Believe.

Expansion
I've recently expanded this article with information from the microfilm archives in my local library. Unfortunately, they only held reels for British newspapers (this being in England), so if anyone can find some more international sources of information, it'd be appreciated :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Written By A True Believer Or Someone With A Good Sense Of Humour
I really hope it's the latter. Either way, no matter how hilarious it is, we should probably change this article to be less crazy. "The scientific community needs to wake up and accept this as a genuine 100% bonafide miracle." Mmm, impartial.
 * Yeah, looks like the IP 81.107.87.33 decided to add a bunch of junk to the end. I really should go down to the library one of these days and get information for the 2006 recurrance. At the moment the stuff added by User:WikiMarshall seems a bit tacked on. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a miracle?
The article failed to explain what is so amazing about this phenomenon. Milk is put on a spoon and pressed against the statue and sucked up by the stone. But what happens then? Did the statues suck up more milk that their own volume? Is there something missing here? Where is the miracle part? --80.56.36.253 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There were reports of statues absorbing more than their own volume in milk, but none were substantiated. The "miracle" was that the inanimate statues were drinking at all. If the effect weren't readily explainable by capillary action, it would indeed appear to have been a miracle. As for why the title of the page is as it is, it's simply because that is the name given to the event by the media and world at large. I try to avoid coining neologisms when titling articles. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1995 and 2010 occurrences
This section seems very unscientific. Yanroy (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu milk miracle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206084637/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004605758 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004605758

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Title
None of the source say "Hindu milk miracle" accordingly I have renamed the article to "Ganesha drinking milk miracle" as more descriptive title that is used in the refs -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any archive of the Asian Age article?
I would like some more clarification about the "miracle" ending at the end of the day. I can't find any good sources that specifically state that. The closest I can find are articles that have a very vague wording about it being over now. Other articles state one temple said the miracle had stopped, so perhaps it was just extrapolation from that? Also, I had sources saying it had just slowly winded down over time, with people becoming less interested. Can we get some better sources on the whole stoppage thing?

Jasper0333 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Prabir Ghosh
A recent edit I made has been removed, so I figured I would discuss it here. The sentence I removed says that "Prabir Ghosh was one of the people to demonstrate how the Hindus were coaxed into believing the miracle." I was wrong for claiming that this information was not supported by the source (I falsely thought the article says that he was one of the first to refute the miracle), but I maintain that this information is unnecessary. Since "many scientists" have disputed the claim, according to the source, there is no need to emphasize this particular person, especially since he is not a scientist and a more credible authority has already been mentioned in the preceding sentences. In addition, the current phrasing demonstrates bias as it suggests that there was no miracle actually taking place. If we keep this sentence, I suggest changing it to something like "Prabir Ghosh also argued that the miracle was explainable by natural phenomena." Theobvioushero (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There’s no bias, just science. We are a mainstream encyclopaedia after all. Your wording is fine but it needs to say phenomenon, not miracle Doug Weller  talk 18:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have updated the sentence accordingly, but I still fail to see why he should be mentioned at all, since he is not associated with the team that is the subject of the paragraph. This paragraph provides the scientific explanation of the miracle, and the sentences about Ross Mcdowall and his team of scientists sufficiently explain this. Prabir Ghosh is not a scientist, nor does he provide any natural explanation other than what has already been mentioned in the paragraph. So, I don't see how this sentence adds any useful information. Theobvioushero (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of Ghosh, since no one has objected to my assertion that it is unnecessary. Theobvioushero (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Phenomenon
Ganeshji card someone in India sent us we used it when we prayed then your stupid father came home from work and the 3 of us did prayers the card drank the milk then my brother desi came home I worked for us 3 but not desi then we went to temple hindu cutural center london ontario and it worked for us again but on the ganesh ji statue but desi was not with us then. 64.231.155.10 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)