Talk:Bhagavad Gita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Bhagavad Gita was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Literature (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy / Vaishnavism / Krishnaism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vaishnavism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religious texts (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing this article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Yoga (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

GAR[edit]

Bhagavad Gita[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
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.
  • The article, related to a major religious book is relatively less informative and neutral than the other major religious books of the world , like quran,bible or guru granth sahib.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talkcontribs) 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)‎
    • 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.

Merge request[edit]

CONSENSUS:

Consensus is to oppose the merge. No clear consensus on moving Influence of Bhagavad Gita to WikiQuote. Samsara 06:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

  • 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). --TitoDutta 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 [1]. 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. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Good idea. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 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)

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.

Vandalism?[edit]

Removing WP:UNDUE info, such as Yogananda's commentary, and the accompanying picture, is not vandalism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yogananda and/or his gurus have a dubious lineage.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been on Wikipedia for years now and understand the guidelines. What you did Victoria was take out a significant 2 volume commentary on the Bhagavad Gita from a well known and respected author. You will need to prove to us on wikipedia why you think it shouldn't be on this page. Also, explain to the community why removing this volume is not vandalism when you deleted it without bringing it in to question on the talk page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Red Rose 13 edits exclusively Yogananda related pages. Red Rose 13 should stop accusing others of vandalism when they delete Yogananda related material. I had two edit summaries which were clear.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Victoria is deleting things from wikipedia that she has judged from a dubious lineage. Wikipedia is a place of facts and not for personal preferences nor judgements - Neutral Point of View [2] Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Red Rose 13 edits exclusively Yogananda related pages.VictoriaGraysonTalk 07:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture: Given the absolutely immense literature on Bhagavada Gita, we should not be declaring any particular translation or commentary of the Gita as important, without proper secondary sources (ie, not just a reference to the translation itself). The article already does a decent job of this at present and cites Robinson, Larson etc on the importance of some translations, although it is not consistent in the approach. Another secondary source that can be used to vet translations and commentaries is the just published:

Richard H. Davis (26 October 2014). The "Bhagavad Gita": A Biography. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-5197-3. ,

which has a chapter on modern translations (and cites Callewaert & Hemraj's count of 1891 BG translations in 75 languages, including 274 in English...and those numbers are from 1982!). @Joshua Jonathan and Redtigerxyz: can you help incorporate this source into the article? I'll try to help, but currently you both are much more active on wikipedia. Abecedare Abecedare (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As a reminder for Red Rose:
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.
Maybe Red Rose could be so kind to provide a secondary source which labels Yogananda's commentary as relevant? anyway, I'll have a look at Davis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Abecedare & Joshua, I will look into a secondary source to support the addition of this book. Pardon my mistake in terminology. The person deleting would have benefitted wikipedia relations by adding this to the comments when deleting. There really is no need to attack another editor nor there good faith edits. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You are attacking other editors' good faith edits by referring to their edits as vandalism.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Victoria did you see just above where I asked to be pardoned for my mistake in terminology? My mistake in the word used wasn't meant to be an attack, please accept my apology. Next time you delete something I suggest you consider doing what Abecedare did and let the person know the problem so they can rectify it instead of giving a personal critic.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential source[edit]

See here The article as well as the book might be useful sources. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had mention the book in the section above but hadn't seen the review. Agree that both potentially contain material worth adding to the current article. Abecedare (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Shouldn't the spelling in the lead be भगवद्गीतः rather than भगवद्गीता? — isoham (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Sanskrit one? It is correct as per the intent there. भगवद्गीतः is correct Sanskrit but not intended there. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
How does an incorrect spelling become correct based on an intent? What IS intended there? — isoham (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The Sankrit word भगवद्गीता is there for the title of this article Bhagavad Gita. It is not incorrect. The word used in Sanskrit for this subject is भगवद्गीतः, which is not the intent of placing the Sanskrit word here. I am okay if you disagree with me and would like it changed. Other editors can weigh in their opinion, but it may be a slow process because there aren't many English Wikipedia editors who know Sanskrit as well. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why is गीता wrong? गीत can be masculine (गीतः) or feminine (गीता, the popular for this text) and may be neuter too. In fact, Monier-williams as well as Apte note गीता. गीता is defined "a song , sacred song or poem , religious doctrines declared in metrical form by an inspired sage (cf. अगस्त्य-गीत्/अ , भगवद्-गीत्/अ [often called गीता], राम-गीत्/अ , शिव-गीत्/अ)" OR "A name given to certain sacred writings in verse (often in the form of a dialogue) which are devoted to the exposition of particular reli- gious and theosophical doctrines; e. g. शिवगीता, रामगीता" --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hindu revivalism and Neo-Hindu movements??? title needs changing, insulting to place on this page[edit]

When i see the wiki page section on Neo-christianity, then thats when i will accept a section titled with neo anything on this Bhagavad Gita page!

School kids are looking at this page for exams and research, why would you title such sections like that? Speak to the editors on the bible page to impute a section on its Neo-christianity programs, when i see that happen then we can talk about a Neo hinduism.92.236.96.38 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Caplock