Talk:Vishnu sahasranama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Vishnu sahasranama is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
WikiProject Hinduism / Vaishnavism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vaishnavism.
 

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Nahusha and Vishnu sahasranama[edit]

"General thoughts" section mentions about King Nahusha. But I could not see the link between Nahusha's story and "Vishnu sahasranama". The reference URL is not working either.

I tried some similar looking content but that also have no mention to any connection between the two (http://www.gita-society.com/section3/mahabharata.htm).

Can someone please throw some light on the connection, if any? If no one knows of any such connection, I think we should remove Nahusha's story from this article.

KeerthiSimha (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Time for a spam cleanup[edit]

I agree that this article need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standard. I am amazed that Wiki allowed the article to become so voluminous, resulting it to become incomprehensible even to a Sanskrit scholar like me. Perhaps Wiki did not check/monitor so as not to hurt the author/s's (or some group's) religious sentiment. I personally admire Wiki's tolerance.
I have tried to help by providing bullets in the Sub-heading - 1000 name of Vishnu in (English - I added) alphabetical order. Thus, the whole jungle of incomprehensible paragraph became comprehensible, only to discover that it is duplication of the earlier heading - Complete List of Names of Bhagavan Vishnu.
It will take me a lot of time, to compare the two Lists, and then decide whether to delete the alphabetical list.
Meanwhile I strongly feel that, the two Sub-headings i) Most Popular Names of Vishnu and ii) Some Other Names can be deleted. The Article has to be comprehensive, tight, cogent, and not fluffy expanding like the blue sky.--JnanaKarma (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice that there was an attempt to clean out the spam in the EL section. I support that effort. Please read WP:EL regarding the fact that Wikipedia links must meet certain tests of inclusion. Currently there is mostly just advertising of specific religious groups, and I think the entire lot of them should go. WP:SPAM notes that Wikipedia is not a link farm. I purged things that seemed to me to be blatant religious advertising or commercial linkspam, but kept three sites because all of them actually list versions of the 1000 names with English translations and the Sanskrit source. However none of the three sites probably would meet the test of a WP:RS and some contain dubious content. Buddhipriya 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach (putting Wikipedia policy before common-sense) and have replaced some of the links. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gouranga. Many of the links deleted were not spam. For example, one link was to a translation of Vishnu Sahasranama, by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, the only author who translated the entire Mahabharata into English, a feat accompanished by no one else.

Raj2004 10:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. There is entirely too much reliance on unreliable web sites by many Hinduism articles. It is time to get more compliance with basic Wikipedia policies on external links. Buddhipriya 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


DaGizza told me about the discussion here, so I thought I'd offer my 2 cents:

  • I don't think we need to adopt an all-or-nothing approach here, but can consider each link on its merit. For example, in the current version:
    • The link [1] is dead, and clearly should be removed.
    • On the other hand it would be useful to have at least one English translation/commentary of the work (even if it does not rise to level of scholarship of a published book). I believe this would comply with WP:EL too.
  • My suggestion would be that we try to decide which of the online translations are the most authoritative and link to 1 (or 2) of them. In making the decision, as far as possible we should stick with translations/commentaries associated with some known scholar on the subject, rather than some random autodidact's website.
  • External links aside, I think the article can use the attention of knowledgeable editors, and I hope this renewed attention will lead to its overall improvement.

Can Buddhipriya, Gourang and Raj offer their opinion on which of the listed (or other online) translations, they consider to be the most worthy ? Regards. Abecedare 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding how one would recognize a reliable English translation, one approach would be to first define what would be an acceptable book as a WP:RS. For this scripture I personally have on hand these two versions, both of which seem reliable:
  • Sankaranarayanan, P. (1996), Sri Viṣṇusahasranāma Stotram, Second Edition, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai. This edition includes the Sanskrit souce, English translation, and an English translation of the Commentary by Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada.
  • Vimalananda, Swami (1985), Sri Vishnu Sahasranama Stotram, Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam, Tirupparaitturai.
Fact-checking can be done by reference to these editions since they are on hand here. I would welcome other book suggestions that may be considered reliable. The gold standard for the Sanskrit text itself would be the online edition of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, as this stotra is taken from book 13. I have that online edtion available for fact-checking purposes (the Vishnu Sahasranama text begins at 13.135.14a in the critical edition). If these sources that I have listed can be considered as WP:RS, I would propose a simple test, which would be to see how the first pada of the stotra is handled by these sites. That will easily allow some comparison of what the sites are actually publishing. If this test is illuminating, additional quality tests can be performed in the same manner. Here is the first pada of the stotra as given in the critical edition: 13.135.14a viṣvaṁ viṣṇur vaṣaṭkāro bhūtabhavyabhavatprabhuḥ. Here are the results of the first test, simply to determine which of the sites actually reproduce the Sanskrit text accurately:
  • The first site [2] does not give IAST, only simple English romanization. That means the Sanskrit source is worthless for all practical purposes.

My comment: This link relates to Swami Krishnanda of Divine Society (Swami Sivananda's respected group's translation.

Raj2004 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Likewise, the site [3] does not give the Sanskrit in IAST, only in simple English romanization. That means the Sanskrit source is worthless for all practical purposes.
  • This site [4] also fails to give IAST for the romanization, both in the stotra itself and in the explanatory text. However it does give the Devanagari, so this is less of a clear failure than the other site. For purposes of determining the actual source text, this is the only site on the list that would permit accurate determination of the Sanskrit.
  • This site [5] does not give the text of the stotra at all. It just a personal essay, citing no WP:RS.

Maybe; don't know about this site.

Raj2004 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Likewise, this site [6] does not give the text of the stotra. It is a personal essay.

Maybe; don't know about this site.

Raj2004 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The translation at Sacred Texts.com does not give the Sanskrit at all, not even in simple English romanization: [7]. It is an antiquated English translation only. For any Hindu who wanted to use the stotra for devotional use, this text would be close to worthless. Buddhipriya 04:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment: Ganguly's translation may be out of date, but our view about it should not extend into the article.

Raj2004 13:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear some logic as to why the sites that do not give the stotra text at all should not be immediately removed, as they are simply POV sites. Buddhipriya 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Abecedare's approach is a reasoned one, it ignores neither common sense nor policy. It's sometimes easy to forget that just because a link may be interesting or even useful to some, doesn't mean it should be found here. Wikipedia is not a link farm. VanTucky (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not an advertising service for religious groups. Another factor that needs to be considered is if the site meets the tests of WP:EL and WP:RS. Simply putting up a text does not make that site a WP:RS. Buddhipriya 04:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the two sites that were just unsourced personal essays, with no text of the stotra whatsoever. Now we are down to four sites that all have various problems as listed above. I request the opinion of more editors on this first test, which was simple to determine which sites actually reproduce the source text accurately. So far, the only site that meets this test is [8] which fails to give IAST for the romanization, but it does give the Devanagari, so this is less of a clear failure than the other sites. For purposes of determining the actual source text, this is the only site on the list that would permit accurate determination of the Sanskrit. I would like some editorial reaction to this before applying further tests, such as accuracy of the English translation based on other standards. Buddhipriya 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see the problem in linking to these two websites. The Sri Vaishnava link for example, is useful as it gives a religious perspective on a religious subject. The other, although a personal essay, still reads as relevant from my perspective. If everyone disagrees then fair enough, remove them - but it seems a bit harsh to me. Gouranga(UK) 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that promotion of religious groups in this way is a valid use of Wikipedia. The two sites that don't even have the text of the scripture clearly fail the tests of WP:RS and WP:EL. For too long we have settled for weak web site sourcing on articles, and I think we need to begin complying with Wikipedia spam policies. There are hundreds of religious groups out there, and Wikipedia is not a link farm. Buddhipriya 08:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TNT[edit]

Wow. Is nobody watching this at all? The article seems to be the usual mediocre quality of our Hinduism articles in general, until you get to General thoughts. Then things really start go go down hill. After the full list of names copy-pasted, no doubt, from some random webpage, somebody added a "Merits" section, apparently unaware that there was already a "Benefits" section further up. I suggest we cut this just before the "General thoughs" thing, and then try to get the remaining content in some kind of acceptable shape. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pundarikaksha[edit]

111) pundareekaakshah: He who dwells in the heart

Literally, pundarika means lotus and aksha means eyes. So the name translates as "Lotus-eyed", which I consider a common interpretation. Miodrag1963 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Quotes about Vishnu sahasranama[edit]

I think that the quotes are important so I added it back.

Raj2004 (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


This article says:

Within Vaisnavism some groups, such as Sri sampradaya, adhere to and follow the Rig Veda: V.I.15b.3, which states "O ye who wish to gain realization of the supreme truth, utter the name of Vishnu at least once in the steadfast faith that it will lead you to such realization."

It seems that this is not Rig Veda V.I.15b.3 but Rig Veda 1.156.3.

Check here: http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/sri-visnusahasranama-stotram-with-english-translation-of-commentary-by-sri-sankara-bhagavatpada-IDF072/

109.60.91.73 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Just about to add a new serious link, I encountered the "No more links" warning and the disastrous status quo, so I have

  1. edited the link descriptions, which were very poor or missing.
  2. temporarily commented, in case someone cares, some Kannada links which really belong to the Kannada page. The Sanskrit is relevant because it is the original text, but we can't start adding here links to all the other contemporary Indian languages. I am making a note to check within two months and delete the commented links if no one has objected, to keep things tidy.
  3. added one link to an academic site.
  4. commented two links which were not working.

Result: The total number of links has decreased, they have fitting descriptions, and they are all working.

Cheerio, Desde la Torre (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)