This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Result: delisted Although the nomination for re-assessment is rather vague, I found a number of long outstanding citation needed tags and dead links. The prose could certainly do with a brush up and the organization of the article is poor. I would suggest a thorough clean up, followed by a peer review before renominating at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I request the re-assessment of the article bhagavad gita, because :
The article does not provide relevant information in the relevant section.
The introductory paragraph sounds awkward,as it contains referenced appraisal by some other persons, which is not the way to introduce a major book of a major religion of the world and may not represent a worldwide view of the topic.
Comment: I see no evidence that primary editors or projects have been informed, which you should do. I fixed the article talk page as the GAR template had not been transcluded. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think this whole influence section is quite useless. It does not tell what the influence of the BG is or was; it only gives some appraisal. If anything can be discerned from this, then it is that the BG apparently plays a central role in Neo-Vedanta (yeah, yeah, here he goes again...) But what this role is, and why, how it influenced those people: nothing about it. This book might be interesting in this respect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
About half of the section seems influence, half seems appraisal. Your book reference looks potentially valuable. Your summary of what's in the section does not seem accurate. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bhagavad Gita is NOT dated by it's written text, its dated by its ORAL history of kings,tribes,land marks and so on, The gita was handed down over thousands of years by mantras, take BUDDHISM for example, buddhism was handed for 500 years as mantras before it was finally written down in Sanskrit/pail ect, before that time the monks would pass Buddha scriptures down in vocal mantras.
The Bhagavad Gita Means, THE SONG OF GOD! pay attention to the word SONG, the gita is not dated in written form just like the Torah is not dated just in its written form of 400bc, we know that the scriptures state that Krishna city was washed over by the sea and that city has been found in Dwarka, The history channel made this clear that artifact brought up in that location sailed past the 5000bc mark which is correct with indian scholars, i do not want to hear this page being influenced by out dated European scholars from the 19th century to 1995, we live in 2013 so be kind enough to treat this page with respect to its correct dating of the Gita.
Even the Jewish page has stated its book was in oral form first, i mean is this page being edited by a educated hindu or just a christian who wishes to not give the full information?220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) markvedic
Please read WP:RS regarding reliable sources, and WP:GOODFAITH and WP:PERSONAL regarding "is this page being edited by a educated hindu or just a christian who wishes to not give the full information" - and refrain from such statements! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
+1 with Joshua Jonathan Tito☸Dutta 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone has been repeatedly reintroducing the nonsensical spelling "Kṛiṣhṇa" into a particular quote in the article, despite multiple editors' attempt to correct it. First of all, the original source (Michaels p. 59, see online here or here) carries the standard academic spelling Kṛṣṇa, and we should in general not tamper with quotation. Even if we do (and that we should do, without comment, is not clear), let me state it very clearly:
Acceptable spelling: Kṛṣṇa (academic convention; see IAST, and also the spelling used in the source)
Acceptable spelling: Krishna (common spelling in English — note: no diacritics)
Unacceptable spelling: Kṛiṣhṇa (here these diacritical marks on 'r', 's', 'n' don't mean anything, in any known system. This spelling is not found anywhere on Wikipedia (hopefully), and does not occur except in archaic works over a century old.)
I'm going to fix the spelling for now (again); please discuss on talk page with reason (like the above) before reintroducing the incorrect one. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Someone proposed a merge request, did not care to start any discussion and merged himself within 24 hours. Please do not make disruptive enough. The topic is broad enough to have its own article(s). --Tito☸Dutta 02:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose' Senseless list of quotes; are we also going to add the opinions of those who reject the Bhagavad Gita? I've reverted the merger. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggest merger to Wikiquote. Appraisal section summarises the views. Influence of Bhagavad Gita is not developed enough to be retained as a separate article and should redirect to the Appraisal section. --RedtigerxyzTalk 12:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, into Wikiquote is the home for this. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Wikiquote info should be separate from main article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There is no official guideline about opposing quotes into articles. It is good to have separate article about the comments about Gita, maybe the quotes were undue here that's why other page was created. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Bhagavad Gita in the Light of Thinking and Destiny
Hi Joshua : ) What do you think about adding a small section on the Bhagavad Gita Wiki recognizing the work of Owen Slight? He did translate the whole Gita and it does make total sense in the light of Thinking and Destiny if you read both. Is this where we talk or should I have made a section on your talk page? Thanks for your help Whatrwe2do (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hope I did that right! ThanksWhatrwe2do (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Both Thinking and Destiny and Owen Slight's The Bhagavad Gita: The Song of the Exalted Self are self-published works of little scholarly notability. For example, I didn't find any reviews or discussion of either on jstor; the former is only included as one of the "Books received" in this list, which shows little beyond that the work exists. Thinking and destiny is at least held by a non-neglegible number of libraries (308) according to worldcat; Slight's book is held by just five. Given all this, mention of either works on this page is undue, and frankly the articles Thinking and Destiny and Harold W. Percival themselves need to be reviewed for notability; I suspect that the latter may be notable as an occultist, but the article need significantly better sourcing to be retained on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)