Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

  • In 1965, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi published his own commentary of the Gita and proclaimed his Transcendental Meditation technique to be the "practical procedure for experiencing the field of absolute Being described by Lord Krishna."
    • Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, On The Bhagavad Gita; A Translation and Commentary With Sanskrit Text Chapters 1 to 6, Chapter Two, Verse 42, p. 129 and pp. 470–472

The edition of this book on Amazon does not seem to have this quotation, certainly not on the listed pages.[1] I'm also concerned that it seems more focused on promoting TM than on discussing the Bhagavad Gita or the Maharishi's significant views about it. I suggest that it'd be better to rely on secondary sources as the basis for summarizing the Maharishi's commentary. One additional consideration is how widely cited or quoted this translation is outside of the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the quote cannot be found ( I verified on goggle books ) and moreover, this reads like a promotional material on Transcendental Meditation rather than adding any information on the Gita, better to remove it. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Citations

"It's philosophies and insights are intended to reach beyond the scope of religion and to humanity as a whole . It is at times referred to as the "manual for mankind" and has been highly praised by not only prominent Indians such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi but also Aldous Huxley, Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Carl Jung and Herman Hesse.[1][2] It is considered among the most important texts in the history of literature and philosophy."

The above text has the effect of belittling a great body of religious and spiritual significance. While listing the famous persons "inspired" by it, the tone of language used here is misleading. It appears like The Gita which is considered the word of the God. Needs to be endorsed by the names of these persons, to convince the reader of its importance. While The Gita is of immense philosophical value to many, and such references are a De-facto practice in philosophy. We should not project what is very much a religious text in the preceding style. Hence im requesting the members to look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujies (talkcontribs) 21:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Redesign chapter overview section

I propose to redesign Chapter overview section. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? What needs changing? Lentower (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Some details, rewriting and redesigning.. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added chapters name in Chapter Overview section. I have followed the spellings of this http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/intro.html. It was the same page which was cited in the section. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bhagavad Gita.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Bhagavad Gita.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 August 2011
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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

This is my longtime suggestion. An infobox in the article! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't find one. Bible, Quran, Guru Granth Sahib do not have infoboxes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be relatively easy to create an infobox for religious scriptures on the lines of {{infobox Upanishad}}. If we can have a list of the fields/contents that need to go in the infobox in a general way so that it can be useful to Bible, Quran, etc, then developing it might be even easier. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-write the first paragraph

I suggest to re-write this article about a major book of a major religion of the world, the introductory paragraph should not mention the appraisal by some people, that can be done and will best suit in an section later in the article.This article is relatively less-informative than the articles on the books of the other major religions . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talkcontribs) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism and dates of origin

I dont want to sound harsh but almust evry time i read some text with hindu related topics and hindu origin such as the vedas, the Upanishads, or the bhagavad gita, the authors always claim that the texts origin dates back to the time of the dinosaurs or close to it which apperently is false, i propose that if not a historical date with sufficient evidence can be provided to the reader of the article then the article should state that fact or atleast provide the earliest recorded fact and not some mumbo jumbo about that the text have been in this world since the world began and so on, i will provide the following example with the use of the bible/new testament in this case since jesus lived in the 7–2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE (acording to scholars/ if he existed at all my opinion ) there is then no way that the bible/new testament could have been compiled before that point in time which is atleast 30-36 AD/CE becuse the bible contains the death of jesus so there would have been no way the authors of the bible could have written about such a event before it happened becuase of the fact that jesus death is mentioned numerous times in the bible/new testament. Now the earliest writting of the new testament and related writtings found (by scholars) is The First Thessalonians written in 70-150 AD/CE (acording to scholars )and thus the article should state that fact and provide a picture of that particular book/scripture/writting. Now with that example that i just provided you/the readers of this section with,, it will be easy to see what we must do that is supply the reader with accurate dates,photos,and if dates and photos cant be provided then the reason for it should be stated in a contemorary way and the text of the article should be keept short and not misleading as the article is in this point of time this is of course my opinion expressed here not krishnas or baby jesus but my opinions period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.199.36 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can not understand what are you trying to say! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am reading the Penguin edition now and came to this page to see the dating on this book. The reason why I did so was that, unless the translators committed a major faux pas, the level of self awareness by the characters is too advanced to place it much before the time of Christ. Human self awareness and consciousness has evolved as we have evolved through the process of civilization. I would date it after Christ based on other readings of the time in Asia (contrary to pop culture most ancient Asian texts were written AD). But only possessing the limited understanding of this text being "ancient," I was intensely curious to its true age. So coming here and reading the section on its dating I was surprised to find that it is presented as having no definitive academic estimate on its dating. Instead the casual reader is given the impression that 3000 BC is actually a legitimate date to mull over which is absurd. So whoever is the expert here can you please clean up the dating? Thanks.BinaryLust (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia in See also section

  • Comment the article on Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia keeps being deleted from the "See also" section. It is appropriate for the article, but it is not included in the article. Being in the "See also" section is very appropriate as others links don't even have articles of their own - please see The Ganesha Gita. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I second Ism schism's comment. The same goes for the recently deleted (and restored by me) links to Wikinews. This the the first time in the world's history that Bhagavad Gita made headlines globally, with cover stories on CNN and elsewhere – and it is WP:UNDUE?? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • While the "See also" is OK, the wikinews is complete WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is, a commentary was being banned, NOT the Sanskrit Bhagavad-Gītā NOT Ramakrishana's Bhagavad-Gītā or any other commentary. I am moving the wikinews to Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Already there. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a mention of this into the article itself, lest we forget that see also sections are meant for wikilinks which are supposed to be integrated into the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal To Undo Edit

I have seen this recent edit where the editor has deleted a large portion from the article. I personally feel his arguments are partially right. I thought to undo this edit, later thought to bring this here for discussion. Edit: [2] --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it really troubling that an editor, and an anon at that, 1) adds to sourced material 2) removes a sourced sentence and 3) adds an unsourced sentence. I am fine with the removal of the quoted box, however. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dating

I can't believe this article uses phrases like "Akashic Record Readers through Deep Trace Meditation (for remote viewing past, present and future events)" to date the Bhagavad gita! CO2Northeast (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed other people above have also mentioned the dating is all wrong in this article. I have fixed it using a recent source from 2004. CO2Northeast (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes made

I cleaned up the lead using the standard Wikipedia model of 3 paragraphs for the lead. I also added recent academic sources and cleaned up the grammar (run on sentences etc.)CO2Northeast (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually there still seems to be some run on sentences, so if anyone wants to fix that, go ahead. CO2Northeast (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the 3 translations

I don't like the picture of the 3 translations, especially with "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" in the picture. CO2Northeast (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is particularly wrong with it?? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
"Bhagavad Gita As It Is" is the Hare Krishna cult. CO2Northeast (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't explain why it should be removed, does it? The words in the article say "A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, wrote Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is, a commentary on the Gita from one of many perspectives of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. This translation and commentary is at the centre of a controversy in Russia, the Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia." The picture shows this book along with a few other translations. I don't see the core problem. Please elaborate. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok I will explain. This translation has no importance historically speaking, or academically. No ancient Indian comentator used it. No modern academic uses it. Moreover, I don't think we should be promoting certain translations. CO2Northeast (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Your are making a big deal over one picture, out of three, in the Hindu revivalism and Neo-Hindu movements section??? Wow!!! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Fine. You all win. I just think its a shame if someone buys this translation based on the picture. CO2Northeast (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
If somebody buys a book based on this picture, well... they'll get a book. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
And if they join this cult, that is all on you. CO2Northeast (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Send them my way - I get a 20% kick back on all tithes from new converts that I bring into the cult! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Amusing. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Prelude" section redundant?

"Prelude" section redundant?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


The date when the Gita was written has to be wrong

I seriously find it very very hard to believe that the Gita was written around 200 BCE to 200 CE!

The Wikipedia article says :Scholars roughly date the Bhagavad Gītā to the period between 200 BCE and 200 CE, the authors having been influenced by the soteriologies of Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya and Yoga.[7] Though the Bhagavad Gita, as a smrti, has no independent authority from the Upanishads (sruti), the Gita is in many respects unalike to the Upanishads in format and content.[8]

I object to this paragraph (and other portions of this article as well) on many grounds, one of them being that there is no reference for the "scholars" who "roughly date the Bhagvad Gita". In addition, I would like to point out that the Bhagvad Gita had been orally transmitted, long before it was put down in the written word. Jbwikidu (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see they have provided a reference, though I have not verified it. Do you have any reference in support of your objection? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is right. The reference pretty much uses identical language, including using the word "roughly". Click here. AssociateLong (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken Reference

Resolved

I have noticed there are two broken references )Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_references_no_text#Issues_and_resolution in the article. I have fixed one [Ref 10 previously]. Ref 25 is also broken. I do not have any reference to replace the broken reference now. I am requesting someone to replace/fix the error there. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference 25 appears to be fine. I don't see any broken links. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ya, it is fixed now. Thanks--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Image Aligining Left

All the images are aligned right in the article. Don't you think we should align few of them to left side? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think they should alternate between left and right. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please Write Edit Summary User:AssociateLong

I have noticed in last few days, User:AssociateLong has done some major changes in the article. Please write edit summary and/or discuss in talk page. After concentrating for 2-3 minutes, I understood little bit what you are tried to do in [your last edit where you deleted a large portion]. And unless it is a spam, I suggest to discuss in talk page before deleting any large portion from the article. If you don't remember to enter Edit Summary (it is not very uncommon) please change preference to alert you when you'll not enter edit summary. Help other editors too to follow your edit. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 02:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted Gaura79's reversion. If you do a little bit of research, you can confirm Gaura79 is a Hare Krishna person. AssociateLong (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
All ISKCON material is wrong is strong POV. I am restoring the Revision as of 17:45, 23 February 2012 (IST), which include the ISKCON referenced material. Reverting removal of fact tags and incorporating some useful changes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem was not just "ISKCON material". What about all the completely unsourced speculation you restored? You also restored some things that are not supported by the references at all. AssociateLong (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have restored [citation needed] tags in the article, which were present in that version and were removed in other versions. Feel free to remove uncited content. If you want to remove cited content, discuss on this page. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You missed a lot of citation needed tags. A lot more need to be put in. 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AssociateLong (talkcontribs)

Once Again User:AssociateLong - Please Sign Talk Page When You Are Giving Someone Warning

I posted a simple talkback in Gaura79's page (like: your edit is being discussed here, if you have time please join). I have noticed you have given him a warning(!) in the same section which I started. But you have not signed the page. As a result, on first look, it seems I have given him warning, but actually I have not. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Indic Text - Talk Page Entry

In this edit I have added Indic Text Template. I am not very sure if it was placed already and reverted later! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Huge ISKCON Bias in article

Why are we using ISKCON to define the five basic concepts or truths? This whole article is complete shit. AssociateLong (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

see discussion on Redtigerxyz talk page. AssociateLong (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I partially agree the article suffers from WP:ONESOURCE. Throughout, blanking all ISKCON sourced sections is not a solution. As I said on my talk to AssociateLong, "If you bring in new references and replace ISKCON reliance, I don't think anybody will object. The fact is the article is poor state, but removing the referenced material (by ISKCON) makes it worse, than better."--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I'm only removing the obviously reptitive stuff thats already covered elsewhere. AssociateLong (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing the article. You're removing well-known facts that don't need to be sourced at all. If you want to improve the article, please find academic sources to support unsourced/ISKCON sourced statements. Please also note, that obvious statments, such as "The Gita belongs to one of the three foundational texts Prasthana Trayi", or "Arjuna was a ksatriya" don't need to be sourced at all.Gaura79 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You are a fundamentalist Hare Krishna as demonstrated by your unsourced garbage edits all over Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if you are Steve Rosen. Your user page is full of warnings from other users. You are a junk editor. AssociateLong (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
We are discussing your edits right now which are on the verge of vandalism. For now it's my and Redtigerxyz opinion against yours. And, by the way, ISKCON sources are not the only problem with this article. What about Swami Sivananda, Tapasyananda, Gambhirananda?Gaura79 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
To say Redtigerxyz is on your side, is of course a blatant lie. I was doing the edits while conversing with him on the talk page. Furthermore Redtigerxyz said "Feel free to remove uncited content." He also said I can replace material with academic material. I did both. You openly admit you are putting uncited material back in. If Redtigerxyz had a problem with my edits, he would have done something about it. AssociateLong (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Whom you are trying to deceive? You removed sourced material and material that didn't need to be sourced. Than you added just one sourced sentence which didn't make sence att all. And let me repeat what Redtigerxyz said: "If you bring in new references and replace ISKCON reliance, I don't think anybody will object. The fact is the article is poor state, but removing the referenced material (by ISKCON) makes it worse, than better." I think the best would be to leave it to Redtigerxyz to check the article once more and see what should stay for now and what should go.Gaura79 (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't tell me there is stuff "that didn't need to be sourced". That goes against every policy on Wikipedia. AssociateLong (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability#When_a_reliable_source_is_required. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of information is removed [3]. Much of that should be findable elsewhere, shouldn't it? Wikipedia should defer to the views of scholars rather than religious groups in the interpretation of scripture. I think it needs to be sourced. Gaura's complaint is that Associate is just deleting things--which is easy--without finding new stuff to replace it--which takes time. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree with your statements "Wikipedia should defer to the views of scholars rather than religious groups in the interpretation of scripture. I think it needs to be sourced." AssociateLong (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • edit conflict
Comment Neither Gaura79, nor Steven J. Rosen, are "fundmentalist Hare Krishna who inserts uncited material all over Wikipedia." This is your personal conspiracy theory. If you have personal issues with these individuals, please take it up elsewhere. This is not the place. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I took the comment back. And it is not merely my "personal conspiracy theory." It is absolutely true. Click here. Vast majority of Gaura79's edits are ISKCON related and always unsourced. Many of the edits are downright despicable. AssociateLong (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Despicable is a strong word. Is it necessary? There are established procedures for dealing with longterm disruptive editors who do not play by the rules or share Wikipedia's content goals. I suggest using them rather than getting into a tizzy about it. The wheels of Wikipedia justice turn slowly, but by Krishna do they turn. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You are quite wrong, but that's all right. Not only is the myth comforting, it's very useful in getting people to persevere. rudra (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, if nobody is against removing alll the religious sourced and unsourced content from the article, then tommorow I will remove it.Gaura79 (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently, I am busy and will not be able to go through the article in detail till the weekend. People, calm down and no personal attacks please. I would advise that indulge in constructive editing by adding referenced information (inclusionist approach), rather than a deletionist approach. We can weigh the references and remove repetitive stuff afterwards. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fwiiw, AssociateLong has a point, many articles on these topics have an actively defended ISKCON bias. Prabhupada is to be considered a primary source, to be discussed under a separate ISKCON heading within WP:DUE, he cannot be used to provide a "summary of the main philosophical subject matter of the Bhagavad Gita". Such sweeping statements need to be attributed to academic literature, not religionist literature. This should be a no-brainer. We do not use Mormon preachers to provide a summary of the Book of Daniel. There may be a section about "In the Latter Day Saint movement" which may or may not be within WP:DUE, but we certainly do not confuse Mormon literature with Old Testament philology. If you do check the lead of Book of Daniel, you will note that there is still a nod to religionist views ("many evangelical commentators still defend a sixth century date") even though this has nothing to do with scholarship on the text itself. By the same standards, this article can conceivably give room to Prabhupada's views. But basing this article on a view that takes the Kurukshetra war as historical would be as bizarre as basing the Book of Daniel article on views that take Daniel to be a historical character.

That said, it does not really look as if AssociateLong has the skills required, either social or topical, to do much about this problem. --dab (𒁳) 18:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

IP editor from India and the Date section

I thought all the date issues were settled above by CO2Northeast. The IP editor from India restored all the junk content. AssociateLong (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Gita Date 3102!

This is the edit
Why do you think sites like http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/, http://voiceofdharma.org/ etc are "garbage"? --Tito Dutta (Message) 17:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think these websites, at the minimum, are definitely "questionable sources" per the Wikipedia guidelines. Look here. . Moreover they don't even support your assertion that the Gita dates to 3012 B.C. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Firstly that is not my assertion, I did not add it, I don't have any opinion on Gita's date. Secondly, it is still not clear, why do you think those websites "garbage"? And I am interested to learn it. Thirdly, (which I suggest) you can rewrite the portion "some people think Gita dates back to 3102 etc.. Read Ramakrishna Mission Gita, they have a long preface where they have mentioned the claim in the same way! --Tito Dutta (Message) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You consider a vegan, Reiki, Urantia, organic farming group to be a proper source? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."---Wikipedia GuidelinesBrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have asked three questions! These points are not applicable for sites like bhagavad-gita.org! BTW, read this page. What do you think, the book garbage too? In Ramakrishna Mission's Gita, it is more or less same! --Tito Dutta (Message) 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course its applicable to bhagavad-gita.org! Thats the whole point of the guidelines! Who the hell publishes bhagavad-gita.org? The Wikipedia guidelines says "Anyone can create a website". Why don't you read the rules of Wikipedia???? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Talk politely please! :::::::Create a new section and WP:RFC, I'll be interested to see the result! And you are clearly ignoring another important point. Have you read the page of the book, I added in my last post? What do you think of it?--Tito Dutta (Message) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It is up to YOU to cite something which supports your assertion. Your own websites don't even claim what you claim. Also your link doesn't work for me, probably because it is Google India. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with you and suggest you to go for an RFC (link above), let's not discuss on it here! And I am really interested to learn your opinion on the book's page I have added above Or Ramakrishna Mission's Gita's preface etc? --Tito Dutta (Message) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with BrahmanAdvaita concerning this edit. For one, I can certainly see why the reliability of the websites are in question. They don't clearly and unquestiongly meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Because it's being contested, without some evidence that these sites are reliable (such as establishing a consensus for this at WP:RS/N), then I'd say they fall under WP:USERGENERATED, and aren't reliable sources. Secondly, The "Followers accept the Bhagavada Gita as historical fact.." sentence is a pretty sweeping statement. Which followers? All followers? There isn't a single follower that doesn't accept it as historical fact? Not one? That's a pretty bold claim to make. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and these sources are in question as to whether they meet the basic definition of reliable sources; they certainly aren't exceptionally strong reliable sources by any means. - SudoGhost 18:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Welcome to this discussion, what do you think about rewriting that portion? --Tito Dutta (Message) 18:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting it to...? - SudoGhost 19:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel this portion should be expanded. Most of the scholarly article tell about multiple possibilities.. eg. some scholars (names)( feel Gita was written in (time), some other scholars feel Gita was written (time), we can follow the same way! --Tito Dutta (Message) 05:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll start rewriting the section in next few (1-2) days, it'll be more or less same what you can see here: read this page, or in Ramakrishna Mission's Gita! --Tito Dutta Message 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposing additions of external links (Criticism)

Criticism
There are too many external links already, but, you 'can add some of these external links, but, we need a clean up of the section first, you can sign up for an account too (optional)! --Tito Dutta Message 01:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It was suggested to clean up the section first, and add some of these links, we don't have any section on criticism in the article, so, we can't add too many external links related to criticism. --Tito Dutta Message 03:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition to external links or references

I would like to suggest the following link:

Bhagavad Gita for Christians A commentary on the Gita by Abbot George Burke (Swami Nirmalananda Giri)

I think you will find this a useful addition for readers.

This website is trying to promote a point of view and therefore is a questionable source for any information. Therefore, I don't think this link should be added to the article.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Norman Allen Quote

Discussion 1

The following quote was undone with the question is he notable enough.

American Ashtanga Yoga pioneer Norman Allen points to the following phrase in the Bhagavad Gita in summary of what he has learned.[1] "The sum total of the habits of a man is his nature. It has come about as a result of his giving himself over to the bent of his mind."

I believe he is, if you disagree please respond here.

He was the first American to study and master Ashtanga Yoga with K. Pattabhi Jois in Mysore. He is not a self promoter, in fact he kept a very low profile. An interview with him can be found at: Norman Allen - Big Island, Hawaii 2001 . In addition, he is one of the "guru's" along with and B.K.S. Iyengar and K. Pattabhi Jois interviewed in the cited documentary by filmmaker Kate Churchill.

Notes

  1. ^ Kate Churchill (March, 2009). [Enlighten Up!] (Documentary). USA: Nama Productions.  Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |title= (help)

Regards,

FordPrefect1979 (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New message should be posted at the bottom of a talk page! Doing it. Reply in next edit! --Tito Dutta 05:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The only person with the name Wikipedia recognizes is Norman Allan. Is this the person? Google is also confused– no definite search result! How this person notable? --Tito Dutta 05:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion part 2

He is not Norman Allan, and he does not have a wikipedia page. He was the first, fourth and sixth "Norman Allen" on google for me.

He was the first westerner to study and master what became a popular version of Yoga. When K. Pattabhi Jois was first talking about Ashtanga Yoga in the US, Norman Allen was often demonstrating. Perhaps my quote should be more clear.

Ashtanga Yogi, and the first Westerner to study and master Ashtanga Yoga with K. Pattabhi Jois, Norman Allen,[1] was asked if there was any spiritual significance of yoga practice. He noted that yoga by itself has nothing to do with spiritual significance. Then in reference to spiritual significance he retrieved his 30 year old copy of the Bhagavad Gita which he had found to be the main text of spiritual significance from Eastern Philosophy. He said that spiritual significance discussed in the Bhagavad Gita can be summarized with the following sentence. "The sum total of the habits of a man is his nature. It has come about as a result of his giving himself over to the bent of his mind."[2]

Notes

  1. ^ Donahaye, Guy (2001). "Norman Allen - Big Island, Hawaii 2001". Ashtanga Yoga Shala NYC. Donahaye, Guy. Retrieved 14 June 2012. 
  2. ^ Churchill, Kate (March, 2009). [Enlighten Up!] (Documentary). USA: Nama Productions.  Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |title= (help)

That is my suggestion. In my opinion it is referenced and appropriate. Thanks for your editing tips. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Google does not recognize this person very well. There is not any Wikipedia article on him too. So, I have some doubts on notability here! Many people, many scholars, many researchers have said many things on Gita. So, we are adding only the very best quotations here (Einstein, Gandhi, Nehru– all world famous personality)! In comparison to that this entry does not qualify! --Tito Dutta 17:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a wikipeida policy requiring that that a person have a wikipeida article to be worthy of quoting? I do not see one in WP:Quote. I disagree with your rolling back (reverting) of my contribution (please see WP:ROLL and WP:ROWN), and I have since worked to improve my contribution to make it more clear who Norman Allen is to explain the context of his quote. The quote I added is from a documentary film, Norman Allen is a well known yogi and referred to in several books. He is the first Norman Allen that I find using a google search, and there are several links regarding on the first page returned by google search. I wondering if we are at a standstill? Should we request a third opinion WP:3?
Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can request a WP:Third opinion --Tito Dutta 20:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard. Tito Dutta is a bit mistaken in his argument: notability in the Wikipedia sense is only relevant determining whether a subject should have their own article or not. The actual contents of the article are not related to notability. And the existence of a Wikipedia article and/or lots of Google hits are not great metrics of notability (or anything else, really) anyway. Instead, we should be discussing reliable sourcing and undue weight. It doesn't seem to be in dispute that Norman Allen says what we claim he says, but we probably should talk about undue weight, which I think is really the underlying thrust of what Tito's saying. Basically, why do we care what Norman Allen says? Do you have any references that discuss why Norman's an authority on this subject, which would help demonstrate why we should include his opinions? Writ Keeper 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If notability is not applicable, then I used wrong word! See the names of this list: [5]! There have been thousands of institutions, researchers and millions of practitioners who have worked or given commentary on Bhahagavad Gita! I don't think this person's should be added unless we find he has done incredible works on Gita and his work has been widely acknowledged!--Tito Dutta 13:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Norman Allen should NOT be included on the basis of undue weight. This is my opinion. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Writ Keeper for taking the time to read over our discussion. Thank you Tito Dutta and BrahmanAdvaita for your responses. Okay, I submit that a few sentences on Norman's Allen brief summary of his understanding of the Gita is a valid contribution to the wikipedia article. To address the question of his authority, I will first begin by noting his comments are part of the public record. I mentioned that he was interviewed in a documentary on Yoga[1]. A discussion of Norman's influence is available at the following yoga movie overview link]. With regards to his authority, he is considered an authority on yoga and he holds masters degree from MySore University. Norman was the first American to study Ashtanga yoga, he is considered instrumental in bringing this form of yoga to the USA. While learning yoga from K. Pattabhi Jois, he studied Indian culture and philosophy in India, and he received a masters degree from MySore University.[2] In the documentary Norman explains that he has studied the Gita for over 30 years. He advocates studying the Gita to understand Indian philosophy and the concept of enlightenment. In summary, it is my opinion that a few sentences and a quote from Norman Allen, when appropriately cited and attributed, is a valid contribution to this wikipedia article. The references are part of the public record and there are references to indicate Norman Allen has sufficient authority to warrant a few sentences. To my understanding there is no objection to the content of the few sentences, they are not controversial, they are not banal, and perhaps importantly (in my opinion) they add a point of view that is not otherwise represented. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Churchill, Kate (March, 2009). [Enlighten Up!] (Documentary). USA: Nama Productions.  Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ Birch, Beryl Bender (January 17, 1995). Power Yoga:The Total Strength and Flexibility Workout. New York: Touchstone. ISBN 0020583516. 
What does yoga have to do with the Gita? Is Norman Allen an expert on the Gita specifically? BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wit due respect, you are giving some unclear explanations. For example–

  • he is considered an authority on yoga– who considers him an authority?
  • and he holds masters degree from MySore University.– did he get Master's degree on Gita? If not, educational qualification is not a vital point here!
  • he is considered instrumental in bringing this form of yoga to the USA– again who considers so? And AFAIK, this credit goes to Swami Vivekananda etc!
  • he has studied the Gita for over 30 years.– you'll find many many many people who have studied Gita from very young age to death (sometimes more than 40-50 years). --Tito Dutta 00:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my cut and paste error BrahmanAdvaita. The western physical practice of yoga has little to do with the Gita, but the philosophical foundations of yoga are generally considered to [come from the Gita]. Titodutta, I am trying to be clear as a I can and to answer the questions as directed. Please forgive me if I have missed something.
I will address reliable sourcing and undue weight as directed by Writ Keeper.
To the question of reliable sourcing, I have tried to carefully cite the sentences I plan to include, and I do not believe the sources are challenged or inappropriate.
To the question of undue weight, as I understand it, you are asking if including Allen's quote violates neutrality, or if I am giving a minority view more space or description than a majority held view. In this case, I simply added a short paragraph (see below for the latest update for what I tried to add) which included a quote, and I have tried to argue that Allen is relevant enough to rate simply that. The opposing argument, put forward by Titodutta, is that Allen's quote should not be included. I disagree, I have included sources indicating that Allen has been written about in published works, on web pages, and he comes up first in a google search for his name. If it matters, he has studied Indian Philosophy (Masters at MySore Univ) in addition to yoga. Ultimately, the the crux of my argument is that Allen having been featured prominently in a documentary that looked into the practice and philosophical underpinnings of Yoga, can have his view of on the Gita presented in a few sentences, without it being considered undue weight. Cheers! FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
My latest update for what I would like to add follows, the original was reverted and is not in the article.

The first Westerner to study and become proficient at Ashtanga Yoga with K. Pattabhi Jois, Norman Allen,[1][2] was asked if there was any spiritual significance of asanas. He noted that yoga asanas by themselves have nothing to do with spiritual significance. He retrieved his 30 year old copy of the Bhagavad Gita which his teacher had written about.[3] He said it all comes down to Gita and he pointed to the following quote, "The sum total of the habits of a man is his nature. It has come about as a result of his giving himself over to the bent of his mind."[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FordPrefect1979 (talkcontribs)

Notes

  1. ^ Smith, B. R. (2007). "Body, Mind and Spirit? Towards an Analysis of the Practice of Yoga". Body & Society. 13 (2): 25–10. doi:10.1177/1357034X07077771. 
  2. ^ Birch, Beryl Bender (January 17, 1995). Power Yoga:The Total Strength and Flexibility Workout. New York: Touchstone. ISBN 0020583516. 
  3. ^ Jois, S.K.P.; Sharath, R. (2010). Yoga Mala: The Original Teachings of Ashtanga Yoga Master Sri K. Pattabhi Jois. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 9780865477513. LCCN 2002104086. 
  4. ^ Churchill, Kate (March, 2009). [Enlighten Up!] (Documentary). USA: Nama Productions.  Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |title= (help)

I second BrahmanAdvaita's question, What does yoga have to do with the Gita? and please don't add quotes of Allen in Yoga articles too. You are repeating same things again and again. All I can understand he is related with a documentary "Enlighten up" with Kate Churchill, Nick Rosen etc! --Tito Dutta 02:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I answered the question above, and I will refrain from repeating the answer. I apologize if I am unclear, but please read my responses carefully. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this matter is closed, because FordPrefect1979 is just repeating himself. I ask again, is Norman Allen an expert on the Gita? I agree with Tito Dutta, that the matter not be included on the basis on undue weight. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have the authority to close the issue then I accept it is closed. I am simply trying to be clear. Norman Allen deserves some weight on the page, one short paragraph, because while he is not an expert of the Gita, he was interviewed for his understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of yoga, which the Gita is considered to be. Kind Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The Gita is not the philosophical underpinning of yoga. This is just a misunderstanding on your part. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right, but it is considered so as I've indicated above, and westerners can be introduced to the Gita through yoga. You are welcome to add references stating this is a misconception or a minority opinion, but that does not mean the quote deserves to be reverted or deleted. In fact this is a good reason why the quote should be added, improved and corrected. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You are a funny guy. You established zero basis for including this material so far. And by the way, my understanding is that the documentary you cited is made by friends of Norman Allen. One of your own blog links says that Norman Allen was the inspiration for that documentary. But I don't want to get in an argument over that, since Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga has nothing to do with anything here on the Gita page in the first place. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to follow the civility pillar, and I encourage you to respect the civility pillar. Your opinion that yoga and the Gita are unrelated may be the majority opinion. However, I have indicated, using various links and references that it is a fairly common opinion in the western yoga community that the two are related, and this constitutes a minority point of view. Looking at the policy, if the point of view has a minority opinion, then it is a valid contribution, but should not be given undue weight. I'm not suggesting giving the paragraph undue weight, and I'm willing to edit it and to improve it, in order to make it precise and to not infer anything that cannot be verified. I recognize you have worked more in this page and wikipedia than I, but it appears to me that what you are suggesting, zero weight for a minority opinion, is an arbitrary opinion and not in keeping with the policy. Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I submit the following in attempt to ensure my argument is verifiable, and to, perhaps compulsively, address the questions. The connection between the Bhagavad Gita and yoga, specifically Bhakti yoga, has been made in the academic literature.[1][2][3][4] Norman Allen is a recognized prominent practitioner of a form of yoga taught by K. Pattabhi Jois,[5] who has written a book linking yoga and the Bhagavad Gita.[6] The documentary that I cite above discusses Bhakti yoga, various types of yoga, and the Bhagavad Gita. Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Dhyansky, Y. Y. (1987). "The Indus Valley Origin of a Yoga Practice". Artibus Asiae. 48: 89. doi:10.2307/3249853. JSTOR 3249853. 
  2. ^ MacShane, F. (1964). "Walden and Yoga". The New England Quarterly. 37 (3): 322. doi:10.2307/364034. JSTOR 364034. 
  3. ^ Nalini Pandit (May 16–23, 1992). "Ambedkar and the 'Bhagwat Gita'". Economic and Political Weekly. Economic and Political Weekly. 27 (20/21): 1063–1065. doi:10.2307/4397889. JSTOR 4397889.  Unknown parameter |doi_brokendate= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Oxley, J. (2011). "Yoga Off the Mat". Yoga - Philosophy for Everyone. pp. 166–177. doi:10.1002/9781118121450.ch16. ISBN 9781118121450. 
  5. ^ Smith, B. R. (2007). "Body, Mind and Spirit? Towards an Analysis of the Practice of Yoga". Body & Society. 13 (2): 25–10. doi:10.1177/1357034X07077771. 
  6. ^ Jois, S.K.P.; Sharath, R. (2010). Yoga Mala: The Original Teachings of Ashtanga Yoga Master Sri K. Pattabhi Jois. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 9780865477513. LCCN 2002104086. 

UNDUE policy says "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". This is assuming that one yoga teacher even rises to the level of a "extremely small" or "vastly limited" viewpoint in the first place. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I will note that I have demonstrated a link between yoga and the Gita in the academic literature which was questioned by BrahmanAdvaita and Titodutta. Dismissively characterizing the published quote as simply coming from "one yoga teacher" is misleading does not recognize that a documentary film generally has an editing process. I await a response from Writ Keeper. I updated my proposed quote, joined the two Norman Allen sections, and changed the formatting of the citations section in attempt to comply with standard talk page style. Thank you all for your time and patience. Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What is misleading is claiming that you are substantiating your position by linking to blogs and links such as this. On top of everything, I don't see how anything would make a comment of Norman Allen worthy of inclusion. You yourself admitted that Allen was not an expert on the Gita. So I agree with the others that it should not be included. I'm going to assume the best and not ask why you were repetitively citing a quite dubious documentary. VegeYoga (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It was inappropriate for me to use the word "misleading" above. I have changed it. I apologize for using repetition in an unnecessary fashion, and I see that I could have used anchors and clarification, as I will do here, when it appeared my text was misread or unclear. Kindly look over what I have written. While I initially used the link in question as evidence a connection between the Gita and yoga, I was ultimately able to make this point with peer reviewed references. Additionally, I have endeavored to use more appropriate evidence my later posts. Regards, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I see the consensus here, and I have informed Writ Keeper that I withdraw my request. Thank you again for your time and patience, FordPrefect1979 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of this image from the article?

Can we please get rid of this image from the article? It looks like its from a new modern temple. Worse yet, it looks like CGI when small. Furthermore we have the same depiction of Krishna and Arjuna in a picture up above. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

1) An image file can be linked in a discussion like this [[:File:Bhagavata_Gita_Bishnupur_Arnab_Dutta_2011.JPG]] which will result File:Bhagavata_Gita_Bishnupur_Arnab_Dutta_2011.JPG (same with Category), though there is no problem with the way you have linked. 2) The Bengali description of the file you have mentioned: Bengali: ভগবদ্গীতা, পশ্চিমবঙ্গের বিষ্ণুপুর শহরের একটি বাড়ির দেওয়ালচিত্র। which means, Wall painting of a house in Bishnupur, West Bengal. a) Which house– not mentioned! b) Why this painting is notable– not mentioned. If we write an article in Wikipedia, on that house of Bishnupur, we can surely add the image in that article to show their dedication toward Gita, but unless this painting is really significant I don't think we should keep it in the article!--Tito Dutta 21:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Please remove the picture. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, missed this post completely. I was checking your recent 3200 BCE revert and found this post. I have removed the image now! --Tito Dutta 21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

There are too many quotes in the Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga section. They are making the section longer and harder to read. IMO, the quotes in both these sections should be reduced to two each, just like the Jnana Yoga section. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, remove few quotes from Bhakti Yoga section! --Tito Dutta 09:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Shall I remove quotes #2,4,5 and 6 then? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What about Karma Yoga section? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Ya, remove few unattributed quotes. To explain– if the comment is like "M.K.Gandhi feels this quote ("quote") is..." don't remove it now. But there is not any name– you can remove few of those WP:OR --Tito Dutta 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Characters of Gita

I can see "Kauravas" have been included as character, but, I don't know how they are characters of Gita. The main four characters are (in order they have appeared in book) Dhritarashtra, Sanjaya, Arjuna, Krishna --Tito Dutta 08:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was puzzled by that too. Kauravas do not have a single shloka in the Gita. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not have any book now, but there are some details in chapter 1 at least– (Ashmakantu vishishtha je tannibodha dwijottam, nayaka mama sainashya sangyarthang tan brabimi te. Bhaban Bhishmascha, Karnascha, Kripascha, Samitinjaya..... etc etc). But, that does not make them characters of Gita, since in the similar way Panadavas have been described just before that (Atra shura Maheshwasha Bhimarjuna sama judhi...) What do you think?--Tito Dutta 09:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. If they are included, lot of other characters mentioned in the Gita will have to be included as well. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your corrections! I was trying to put an easier to scan structure to the article, without adding too much content, as I have not yet had time to do much research on the details of the Gita. I think I added the Kauravas because I'm reading the Mahabharata right now and thinking a lot about the Gita within that context. Adelle Frank (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dating Bhagavad Gita

200 BCE is given as the earliest date for Bhagavad Gita in the article. However, for the reasons given in this source the date may have to be revised:

  • Gita seems to predate major orthodox schools of Indian philosophy. Given Purva Mimamsa Sutras and Vaiseshika had been laid down by 3rd and 2nd century BCE, the earliest date of Gita must be earlier than 2nd-3rd century BCE.
  • Fowler notes that a date of 5th century BCE is accepted by some scholars. However, she sees second century BCE as being more "probable". Since, scholarly opinion is divided shouldn't the earlier date be accepted?
  • Fowler further suggests, portrayal of Krishna as God on Earth might suggest it was inserted into Mahabharata before the close of 2nd century BCE, possibly in the third century BCE.
  • The other reference used to date Bhagavad Gita, Eliot Deutsch, Rohit Dalvi, neither gives any rationale for the dates nor a strict date: "The Gita can be placed roughly about the beginning of the Christian era, within a margin of two centuries, and the authors must have seen the appeal of the soteriologies both of the "heterodox" traditions of Buddhism and Jainism and of the more "orthodox" ones of Samkhya and Yoga."

Given the evidence from references, dating Bhagavad Gita to 200 BCE - 200 CE needs to be revised (even the later date needs discussion) or at least rewritten to reflect the controversy and possible earlier origins better. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The dating issue was discussed above. There is consensus. Your own source says second century BCE is the probable date. Unless you are a scholar or noted author, this is not the place to make your own arguments. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above discusses far earlier dates than I am suggesting. Besides, new evidence can always lead to further discussion. "Probable" is Fowler's opinion. However, she has herself, acknowledged opinion of other scholars, discussed and given reasons for earlier dates. Again, "probable" 2nd century BCE is not what 200 BCE-200 CE represents. It needs to be revised or rewritten. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No, because one of the cited sources explictly says 200 BCE to 200 CE. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Which cited source explicitly says 200 BCE to 200 CE? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Deutsch and Dalvi.BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No it does not, I have quoted it above. It is rough, gives a huge margin of error and is very implicit. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"a margin of two centuries" is pretty specific. It is a specific number. The number 2. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The authors shy away from writing 200 BCE to 200 CE for a reason. The dates to them are error prone, probable, not exact. Besides, they offer no rationale. "200 BCE to 200 CE" represents a certainty about starting and ending dates. Once we admit the dates are far more vague, we can think about ways of rewriting it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"The Gita can be placed...." is not a "shy" statement my friend. Plus the article does say "roughly" just like the source does. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
What they are saying explicitly is Gita can be placed roughly about the beginning of the Christian era with a margin of error of +-2 centuries. Now a margin of error hardly qualifies as starting and finishing dates, which if nothing else, imply a continuous insertion of material into Bhagavad Gita for 4 centuries. Then again "early Christian era" is itself explicitly listed as "rough". The second reference, Fowler, quotes various scholars dating Gita between 5th to 1st centuries BCE with rationale. I think this is sufficient reason to rewrite, if not revise, the dates. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to overturn the previous consensus, especially when your own Fowler source says "second century BCE, which I think is the more probable". BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Even if all the other arguments from Fowler are ignored, "probable second century BCE" can be placed in the article instead of 200 BC- 200 CE, dates formed by quoting an author's margin of error. Regarding previous consensus, please see "Consensus can change". CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Scholars roughly date the Bhagavad Gita to the period between 200 BCE and 200 CE" is one way of representing the dates in which Bhagavad Gita was written, "Bhagavad Gita is dated to around 2nd century BCE, with scholarly opinion varying between 5th century BCE and 1st century BCE" is another. In light of the new source and the problems highlighted in using the earlier reference, I say we go with the latter. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to do some studies and prepare a document first! 200 BC 0r 2000 AD – that does not matter but it should be well referenced, in some books you'll find authors have written pages only on dating of Gita, but, currently we have only one line on this in the article. --Tito Dutta 05:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you give links to books which work on dating the Bhagavad Gita, other than the two mentioned above. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Sources

I think after gathering some sources, we can eliminate non reliable ones and try to reach a conclusion! --Tito Dutta 06:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

After having reviewed the sources added, it appears that there are two distinct distributions of dates estimated by scholars:
  • 3100 BCE - 1400 BCE (Sharma, Bhatnagar and Ganguli)— Using scriptural genealogical date, archeo-astronomy and excavation of Dwarka.
  • 500 BCE - 250 CE (D'Souza, Fowler)— Using literary evidence of inspiration from Upanishads, Buddhist thought and estimates of dates in which Mahabharata was written.
While, Sharma, Bhatnagar and Ganguli do not conclude their findings, D'Souza and Fowler indicate their preferences for Bhagavad Gita's dates. Fowler suggests a possible date of 2nd century BCE and D'Souza concludes the latest date of composition to be 3rd century BCE. Since it appears from conversation with Tito that there is no previous consensus, any comments on which of, if not both, distributions is to be included and how the sentence regarding date of composition is to be worded. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You can add your sources too! We can create a paragraph on this like:
"Some scholars (names, descriptors) think Gita date backs to ABCD BCE, but some other scholars like (names, descriptors) have denied it, and they date back Gita to the period between ABC–DEF CE/BCE. Prof. Examle in his book "example revisited" wrote that– "..................................." .....
I think writing in this style will be much better than what it is now! --Tito Dutta 07:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I made a mistake earlier, Ganguli concludes his research too with a date of 15th century BCE, which he claims is the consensus. Lets limit our scope to scholars who have examined various dates and concluded their research i.e. D'Souza, Fowler and Ganguli. Your style seems alright to represent their opinions. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As Tito suggests, we need to show the range of opinions given in reliable sources. It is not our role to determine which of those reliable sources is correct or even most likely correct as that would be original research. Having said this, you can definitely discount Ganguli because it is published by Global Vision, a known problematic publisher. D'Souza might be iffy also, and two of the others are published by an outfit that I have never heard of. Obviously, Tito is already on-message with this issue, per I think after gathering some sources, we can eliminate non reliable ones and try to reach a conclusion. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Do the various dates and references the authors have examined need to be mentioned as well or just their conclusions? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You would need to come to a consensus about that issue in this specific situation. I suggest that a list of sources is compiled first, using Tito's stuff as a start. That list can then be filtered for reliability, thus leaving you with a range of opinions that have to be included in the article. At that point, you can all make a determination on presentation. I can help out with the general decision-making stuff if needed. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with Sitush, we should not decide which source is correct! Please add some more sources! I'll also try to find more sources! --Tito Dutta 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Note, I have made some changes in the code of those refs so that we can see ISBN and publishers easily! --Tito Dutta 08:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have added a few sources of my own. Its time we started striking off the unreliable ones. Meanwhile, I'll also work on turning my refs into cite book format. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did a survey of the publishing houses mentioned above. This is what I found:

  • Pustak Mahal claims to be among the largest publishers of India. It is a well known publisher in India and its books are included in book fairs.[6] There is no way to confirm whether they are a fact-checking academic publisher or not.
  • The authenticity of Lexington Books as a source has been questioned here.
  • New Age Books is a Delhi based publishing house that deals exclusively with books related to spirituality.[7] It seems suspect.
  • Wordsworth Editions specializes in fiction.[8]

Other publishing houses seem fine to me. Information on (un)reliability of other publishing houses and comments on whether the publishing houses mentioned above should be included or not are welcome. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just ripped into Pustak Mahal. Aside from being a promotional page based on copy/pastes from their website, their current claim is to be the largest publisher of mass appeal books in India. They are not remotely an academic press, although it may be worth examining if the authors listed above are nonetheless academics. Wordsworth, by the way, are primarily facsimile publishers: they reprint old works, just as Asian Educational Services do. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Among the authors Pustak Mahal has published, Prof. A.P. Sharma is an academic with relevant education and work experience.[9] Dr Sant Bhatnagar however, looks more like a hobbyist.[10] He cannot be considered to be a reliable reference. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── New Age Books is same as Motilal Banarasidass and there were no significant objections in the Reliable sources Noticeboard to the use of Lexington Books as a reliable source. So I am including both in the summary of dates of composition of Bhagavad Gita, mentioned in books listed above:

  • Fowler — quotes a range of dates from 5th century BCE to first century BCE; uses literary evidence and estimates of Mahabharata; chooses 2nd century BCE as being the most "probable".
  • Sharma — lists 3000-2000 BCE as the likely period of composition; refers to the work of C.V. Vaida and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya.
  • Kapoor — places the date "not later than 600 BCE"; uses literary evidence from Mahabharata to place Gita between Upanishads and Brahma sutras, but earlier than Buddhism.
  • Kenoyer, Heuston — 4th century BCE to 4th century CE; does not give any reasons, neither is the date discussed.
  • Klostermaier — reviews various scholars but does not always quote dates and is therefore difficult to review; two dates 200 CE and "pre Buddhist times" stand out.
  • Upadhyaya — between 5th and 4th century BCE; uses three different lingustic methods to arrive at his conclusion.
  • Pandit — while he dates Mahabharata text to 1400 BCE; he uses works of Kak, Kane and others to arrive at dates of 700 BCE, 500-200BCE, 100BCE-100CE.
  • Singh — 5th and 2nd century BCE; refers to other works.
  • Jones — quotes "Hindu authorities" for 5th century BCE and "highest authorities"(?) for 2nd to 3rd century CE.

Please comment on how the dates section of the article is to be worded. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Start with– There has been different opinions on the dating of Gita. Then mention the most notable opinions one by one like Fowler thinks.. A.P.Sharma thinks.. etc, for now do not add more than 3–4 opinions. And don't draw any conclusion like, it seems, Gita dates back to 200 BCE to 200 CE etc. Keep it unsolved, as it IS practically unsolved still! --Tito Dutta 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If we are thinking of picking just 3-4 opinions, on what basis do we choose them? And even if we find a basis, how do we avoid original research in the process? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Scholars'/researchers' opinions should get priority, I think! --Tito Dutta 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I would choose Fowler, Sharma and Upadhyaya. Fowler and Upadhyaya because their work contains variety of opinions and detailed research. Sharma because of his confirmed credentials. However, since this is just my opinion, it could be easily contested later. Verifying who, among the authors above, is more reputed researcher/scholar is a tough task. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Last time too, I proposed before editing (note last time I added this Sharma's reference), at that time, no one spoke or commented but, as soon as I made changes, I found opposing voice. So, I am not sure history will not repeat this time. Go ahead and start the work at least! --Tito Dutta 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Goethean and I stated that Sharma was not a proper source. I stated this wikipedia policy here: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Goethean in the same vein said "We do not need the article to say that the Gita was written thousands of years before the date that all mainstream scholars give."BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As before, you never participate or co-operate in discussion and pop up when everything is fimish. What are you trying to do actually? --Tito Dutta 16:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually this was already discussed before. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't revert whole edits, such tendentious editing will invariably lead to more conflicts. If you had problems with Sharma it can be addressed here, but there was no need to revert other content as well, which has been arrived at through a painstaking process. And again, consensus can change if at all there was a consensus. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure consensus can change. You don't have consensus yet. You have 2 versus 2 on the Sharma reference issue. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I second it, don't revert. And there was not any consensus. Please don't give incorrect statements. And also mention– Why didn't you participate here when we were discussing? --Tito Dutta 16:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I did participate just yesterday. I pointed out multiple times to the previous discussions. And yes there was previous consensus. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
N Incorrect! See here, I proposed the change, you did not post any comment, but when I made changes, you came into scene immediately. This time too you have come into scene when the edit is done! --Tito Dutta 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You made the changes? So is CorrectKnowledge your sockpuppet?BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Follow SPI procedure. The question is why didn't you participate twice when it was proposed in talk page? --Tito Dutta 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
"2 vs 2"? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Also, please go through the entire discussion above. Again concerns regarding Sharma can be addressed, summarize here what your problems exactly are with the reference. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Goethean and I stated that Sharma was not a proper source. I stated this wikipedia policy here: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Goethean in the same vein said "We do not need the article to say that the Gita was written thousands of years before the date that all mainstream scholars give."BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
How did you and Goethean arrive at the conclusion that Sharma's dates were exceptional and others' were not? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
In a post you can read above I wrote: "After having reviewed the sources added, it appears that there are two distinct distributions of dates estimated by scholars-
3100 BCE - 1400 BCE (Sharma, Bhatnagar and Ganguli)— Using scriptural genealogical date, archeo-astronomy and excavation of Dwarka.
500 BCE - 250 CE (D'Souza, Fowler)— Using literary evidence of inspiration from Upanishads, Buddhist thought and estimates of dates in which Mahabharata was written." CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well if you believe that you should be using WP:SPI.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Two questions:

  • BrahamAdvaita, please can you link to the prior discussion where you believe consensus existed.
  • Can anyone provide me with some background regarding Sharma - a sort of resume/CV, if you like.

Meanwhile, I suggest that both "sides" cease from editing this aspect of the article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

His bio is here (under the about author section). As I have said in a post earlier, he looked relevant because of his education and work ex. I couldn't verify any more. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Claiming the Bhagavad Gita is before the Vedas, Upanishads and Harappan civilization is exceptional and insulting to Indian culture and history. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I really do not care what your opinion or that of any other contributor may be with regard to the historiography etc. We are trying to sort out things using reliable sources and we are not censored, as is the Wikipedia way. Please can you provide the link that I requested. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I am ignoring you Sitush. You are not an admin, or in any position to dictate what one writes. Claiming the Gita predates the Vedas, Upanishads and Harappan civilization is exceptional and violates Wikipedia policy. Regarding the previous discussion please see here.BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the link. As for the rest, well, admins have no special powers, WP:AGF and I am dictating nothing here. I'll try to work my way through the previous thread which, I notice, is fairly recent. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have reviewed the previous thread. BA, I know that you are not going to like this but the fact is that you did not have consensus. What you had was a 2 versus 1 situation ... and the one had a source whereas the two appear to have been relying on original research. Consensus is always based primarily on arguments that are compliant with policy, and OR is contra-policy. I am not suggesting the you and t'other are incorrect in your opinion but rather that your opinions as then stated seem not to comply with Wikipedia's methodology. Of course, WP is not a perfect system but it is how it is. Can you provide something that does fit within the way that WP operates? I guess, putting things bluntly, we need to start that debate again. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Sitush, your (wrong) opinions means nothing to me. I follow Wikipedia policy. Claiming the Gita predates the Vedas, Upanishads and Harappan civilization is exceptional. It is simply a fringe theory. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You claimed a consensus in the prior discussion that did not exist. Of course, it may well be a fringe theory but you need to substantiate that without recourse to original research and you have not done that. Since you claim to be familiar with policy, I'll desist from teaching you how to suck eggs. However, if you do need advice then feel free to ask. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course consensus existed. Again you are wrong. This is not even worth responding to anymore. Stop acting like an admin and giving unsolicited advice including on my talk page. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look, you either respond to reasonable requests, such as mine, or you do not. If you do not then your views will be discounted. I am content and confident to make that decision and I am acting here in an advisory role, If you check my interactions with the others who are involved then you will not have to go back too far to find that we have had disagreements.

It is as simple as that. You have yet to provide a single policy-based explanation for your objections, and consensus is itself policy-based. All you have come up with so far appears to be bluster based on fallacious interpretations of how Wikipedia operates. I have explained what you need to do and have offered to advise you. There is a phrase in the UK that pretty much summarises this situation: "put up or shut up". Basically, justify your position in a meaningful manner or keep quiet. Your choice. - Sitush (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You claim there was no consensus. There was. You claim we were relying on "original research" rather than books, when actually atleast FOUR books were cited in that discussion without extraneous commentary. Please stop the lies. And I've already cited countless times the Wikipedia policies of the fringe theory and the exceptional sources policy. So again here you are lieing, when you say I haven't provided a "a single policy-based explanation." You are here in bad faith. As recommended here, I will not allow you to drag me into your behavior. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You have not answered the question– why didn't you participate in discussion when it was proposed in talk– last time also I proposed changes in talk, you did not comment and this time too you have posted when we have summed up everything! --Tito Dutta 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BA, please do not accuse people of lying - it is likely to get you into trouble. What are the four books, excluding the Bible, Torah etc (unreliable sources)? Where is your policy-compliant evidence that it is a fringe theory etc (ie: don't rely on original research such as "X is fiction/older than Y therefore it makes no sense"). Please explain how 2 v 1 can be satisfy consensus unless you have been able to prove these points and/or that Sharma is unreliable as a source. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Among the sources quoted above, only Upadhyaya and to an extent Kapoor have conducted original research. Rest of the sources, in turn review other references. So maybe, evaluating their sources of information might lead us further. For instance, Sharma quotes C.V. Vaida and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya. If those are acceptable researchers and not fringe theorists we can include Sharma as a reference. Does that help or are we transgressing WP:OR again? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If reliable sources conduct original research then that is their prerogative. It is us who are prohibited from doing so. We rely on them - their expertise, reputation, peer reviewers etc - for our info. OTOH, it might be better to get the info straight from the horse's mouth, ie: to cite Vaida and Bhattacharya direct rather than rely on Sharma as an intermediary. This is not essential but if anyone has any doubts regarding the credibility of Sharma then we can skip his middle-man role. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say we should exclude those who have done OR. In fact, those are most reliable, for their logic and evidence is easily available. But where we find neither logic nor references, like Kenoyer, Heuston, or we find the authors relying on questionable references like Jones, do we still include them because the authors/publishing houses are reliable? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Kenoyer/Heuston are published by a top quality press (OUP, CUPO, SUNY etc are really as good as they come) and would usually be difficult to ignore because of this. However, in this instance I would not put too much weight on them because it is a book intended for children and Heuston's involvement appears to be as a storyteller - see their details. Jones is also likely to be poor: it is a very old book, written by a churchman of the Raj period. We prefer much more modern sources, especially bearing in mind that a lot of the Raj output was, let's say, amateurish and voyeuristic. So, I'd discount both of those sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. It makes the job of wording the final draft a bit easier now. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You do not have consensus for any edits. Sitush is here in bad faith as I have demonstrated. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you are clearly again lieing. The following books were cited in the previus discussion. And they are not the Bible or torah. Here you go one, this one, this one.. We even added one of them into the article. And one of them is the top academic in India, in my opinion. So please stop the lies. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Light bulb iconB Sitush, please note, this person is searching with the query "Gita 200 BCE" as you can see in the search bar of his linked pages. This person is trying to mislead by searching only that query which is in his favor. --Tito Dutta 12:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You think you are smarter than Professor Upinder Singh, the topmost Indian expert? Since the Bhagavad Gita is important to you according to your personal website, I suggest you refrain from any further input since you cannot be objective.BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Enough! How my personal website is related to this discussion or this article? Have I linked it here or in the article? Please explain clearly! --Tito Dutta 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are biased and may have an agenda. Thats what your personal website indicates. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Another personal attack! I'm asking other editors to comment on this! Your username is BrahmanAdvaita (I don't think it is real name, anyway, that's not a problem), which is directly related to Hinduism and Vedanta– so should I say– don't edit any Hindusim related article? Don't worry, I am not gonna say this. Please explain in clear words, how my personal website is related to this discussion? --Tito Dutta 12:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
BA please stop the personal attacks, it only makes it infinitely harder to build consensus. Now, your second reference (Roth, World Philosophers and Their Works) is a tertiary source, which means it may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. (See this) Needless to say, your other references will be given the same respect as mine and Tito's. We will scrutinize them in a similar manner and consider them in the final wording of the section. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you should wait a week atleast for other people to respond, especially the major respected Hinduism editors like redtigerxyz. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree here, that's the thing I mentioned too, let's not do anything hurriedly. Let's wait for others. --Tito Dutta 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I dropped Redtigerxyz a message here. Lets wait for his comments. Meanwhile, I am scrutinizing your other sources. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, don't you find it funny that BrahmanAdvaita is talking about RedigerXYZ today, but I asked you to invite RedtigerXYZ immediately after starting the discussion! In addition, you can invite Goethan too. About sources– ya, try to collect few more sources too. Give scholarly works and research works more priority! In this thread, have I asked you a single time to add anything like 200 CE 200 BCE 2012 CE etc? I have just gathered sources! What I personally want is the best and correct information– nothing else! To make it clear– almost 70,000 people are reading this article every month, so, we should be very careful before writing anything! What do you think?--Tito Dutta 13:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
BrahmanAdvaita, your other two references seem like textbooks used in universities and are therefore, IMO, reliable sources. Summarizing the dates of composition mentioned in these two sources:
  • Upinder Singh — 200 BCE based on interpolation from Mahabharata.
  • Andrea, Overfield — 300 BCE to 300 CE by placing it between Mahabharata and Upanishads.
Yes Tito, you had asked me to invite Redigerxyz. I didn't, because I know he is usually busy on weekdays. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello all, sorry for my absence. The best outcome would be to concisely describe the arguments that each author gives for their beliefs. Obviously these will be complex and difficult to summarize in a single sentence, but we should be able to give a thumbnail sketch of each authors evidence. This will help readers to evaluate the authors' claims. If for example one authors dating is based on scriptural evidence and astrology, just go ahead and write that. The dating of the Gita is such a big topic that an entire article could be dedicated to it. The important thing is that authors' evidence and arguments are summarized accurately and are well-sourced, and that you don't give excessive space to non-scholarly views. — goethean 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bansi Pandit does not look like one of the most reliable sources on the topic. He is a nuclear engineer by profession. I suggest that he be removed from the list. — goethean 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources section 02

I have summarized all the sources (including BrahmanAdvaita's) in the discussion above. Please have a look at them and suggest how the statement on dates of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is to be worded. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Summarizing again is probably in order:

  • Fowler — quotes a range of dates from 5th century BCE to first century BCE; uses literary evidence and estimates of Mahabharata; chooses 2nd century BCE as being the most "probable".
  • Sharma — lists 3000-2000 BCE as the likely period of composition; refers to the work of C.V. Vaida and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya.
  • Kapoor — places the date "not later than 600 BCE"; uses literary evidence from Mahabharata to place Gita between Upanishads and Brahma sutras, but earlier than Buddhism.
  • Klostermaier — reviews various scholars but does not always quote dates and is therefore difficult to review; two dates 200 CE and "pre Buddhist times" stand out.
  • Upadhyaya — between 5th and 4th century BCE; uses three different lingustic methods to arrive at his conclusion.
  • R. Raj Singh — 5th and 2nd century BCE; refers to other works.
  • Upinder Singh — 200 BCE based on interpolation from Mahabharata.
  • Andrea, Overfield — 300 BCE to 300 CE by placing it between Mahabharata and Upanishads.

These sources were determined as reliable in the discussion above. Please give your comments and suggestions on how to reword the dates section to better reflect them. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge, please add URl, publisher too, you can use the blank box below, it gets highlighted easily! And if possible add descriptors for authors --Tito Dutta 14:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that "...refers to the work of C.V. Vaida and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya..." and "...refers to other works." is not very helpful to the reader. If author x makes no argument other than referring to other authors, then bringing up author x is really not very constructive or enlightening. The whole point of the paragraph should be to introduce readers to the academic debate over the date of the Gita. — goethean 14:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of the authors here refer to other authors. However, authors quoting dates before 1400 BCE usually rely on methodologies mentioned here:
This book wasn't used here because the publishing house is unreliable. However, it probably better reflects the ways in which such ancient dates are arrived at. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've rearranged the sources and pasted your proposal into User:Goethean/Dating of the Bhagavad Gita. Please feel free (everyone) to edit the list at that page into a coherent paragraph, or to add additional sources. — goethean 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Tito, I am taking your table to Goethean's page. Just one question, is this how you want the dates to be represented in the article or is this just for talk page purposes? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, I have deleted the table from this page and create an h4 section so that we can edit easily, currently I have scroll a lot to get the edit link! --Tito Dutta 15:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz will not be taking part in this discussion owing to its length. (see this) And I have added the para previously reverted by BA on the subpage. Please (all of you) have a look at it, it'll serve as a good starting point. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
CorrectKnowldege, I think after gathering and doing scrutiny works etc, we may try to divide the opinions into groups! What do you think? I'll try to invite him once again after making our final draft of sources!--Tito Dutta 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Btw, you didn't answer, is the table for talk page purposes only? Because if it is, it'll be a lot of work just to make things cleaner for other editors. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I can not understand this! --Tito Dutta 15:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, I am working on the paragraph now. I'll explain when we get to the table. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
REALLY, CorrectKnowledge, I did not understand that question. Okay let me answer all possible questions! 1) if you asked to add the table in article, then no, I don't think a table will look good, 2) If you asked about moving the table to Goethean's talk page, then no problem at all, post a copy here after making the final draft (BTW, I have replied in RedtigerXYZ's talk page, you can see it). 3) If you asked to not use the table, then don't use it, but add URL and publishers' too, so that others can check those pages quickly. For example RedtigerXYZ will be here after we'll finish our final draft, it might be helpful to him 4) If you asked to move the table anywhere else (your sandbox etc), yes, you can move it, you can also post your sandbox link, I'll also try to contribute there (most probably tomorrow, not today, very tired). That's all I could understand from that question! Sorry if it does not help! --Tito Dutta 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that the table should be in the article. I think that the article should summarize the information in paragraph format. — goethean 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the Deutsch and Dalvi source?? By the way, another top wikipedia editor in this areas is Fowler&fowler. We should invite him if redtigerxyz, doesn't want to participate. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the thing about summarizing every authors logic is hopeless. Have a look at the subpage... that is what it took to summarize just Fowler. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen one history book that begins Indian history with the Bhagavad Gita before the Harappan civilization and Rig Veda. Not a single one.BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

True, Bhagavad Gita can't be older than Harappan civilization, nor contemporary to Rig Veda, since Sam Veda is mentioned in Gita in Bibhuti Yoga (Krishna is Sama Veda amongst Vedas etc)! Anyway...--Tito Dutta 15:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you say that Titodutta. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, I need all of your comments on this. This thing about summarizing every authors logic to explain it better to the reader is no good. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then we should select the most reliable sources and concisely summarize their reasoning. My idea was to do this in one or two sentences for each author. — goethean 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't date back Gita to 3500 BC, it'll sound weird, it'll be similar to– Wikipedia was launched in 2001 and someone made edits in Wikipedia in 1997. --Tito Dutta 16:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. "The date of origin of the Bhagavad Gita is uncertain despite analysis using various metjhods such as X, Y and Z. A believes that it can be ascribed to somewhere between YYYY and YYYY, while B considers YYYY to be likely. Others, such as C, prefer YYYY and D says YYYY". We do not have to show every single source, nor much detail of how they got to their conclusions - the footnotes are there if the reader wishes to pursue the matter. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Good way to start! --Tito Dutta 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and if you are worried about prominence then list the various people in alphabetical order - simples! - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The reverted edit on the subpage was the best attempt to reflect the diverse opinions of the academia. But its now turning into an exercise of :futility. If we do any more work on this we could create a new Dating Bhagavad Gita article. Please lets not get dragged into any more tables, summarizing, scrutinizing, asking for opinion of esteemed editors (we have enough of them here). Lets just conclude this with a short paragraph which goes like this: "Some scholars date it to 200 CE, yet others to 500 CE and a few to 2000 CE". Or we can go with the reverted edit, but lets not do more work on this. I am sorry if I sound a bit frustrated. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We are not encouraged to use the "some people" formula - it is WP:WEASEL. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the reverted edit: Theories on the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita vary considerably. Jeaneane Fowler writes that while scholars accept dates of fifth century BCE with a later demarcation of second century BCE, she thinks [based on what?] second century BCE to be the more probable date of composition.[1] However, A.P. Sharma estimates [based on what?] the latest date of Mahabharata to be 1432 BCE and holds the view that the Gita was composed between 3000-2000 BCE.[2] Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, on the basis of estimates of dates of Mahabharata, Brahma sutra and other independent sources, concludes that Bhagavad Gita was composed between 5th and 4th centuries BCE.[3] The actual dates of composition of Bhagavad Gita remain unresolved.[4] CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge, you seem to be ignoring what both Tittodutta and I said. Please stop dating the Gita before the Rig Veda. Thanks. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to remove Sharma that is fine with me. Honestly, I am too tired to care about Wikipedia policy anymore. If Tito and Sitush agree we'll drop Sharma. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It was told, you are my sockpuppet and now it is being told– you are ignoring my comment! I am confused too. Anyway, I am going to check Sharma's reference once again! --Tito Dutta 16:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Aside from original research - ie: BA criticising Sharma's chronology of BG vs other ancient texts - what is "wrong" with Sharma? As I understand it, he is citing two other people - are they both wrong? How knowledgeable are they? Does Sharma explain the discrepancy claimed here? Are we confident about the dates for the other works? - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide one history book that begins Indian history with the Bhagavad Gita before the Harappan civilization. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tito don't bother with more scrutinizing. Whatever evidence exists linguistic or otherwise is set up like a house of cards. There are assumptions after assumptions, such that you could date BG to 7000 BCE if you wanted, I am being serious here.
Sitush, I guess we just take a call here, Sharma or No Sharma.
BA, just stop it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya bases his argument on astronomical data. [11] If no further information is available about Bhattacharya's or Sharma's argument, I suggest that Sharma is not one of the most reliable or prominent sources, and he can be striked from the list. — goethean
What about Vaidya. I am guessing whatever his method is it must fall within scriptural genealogical date, archeo-astronomy and excavation of Dwarka. Now you might call that pseudo science, but linguistic evidence is also flimsy and I cringe while saying this, it would be OR. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
BA, you probably mean well but have been pretty unhelpful throughout this entire process, If you cannot contribute positively, as everyone else has done, then perhaps it is time to take a bow. You simply are not getting to grips with the concept of WP:OR and it is frustrating several of us. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, until you provide one history book that starts Indian history with the Bhagavad Gita before the Harappan civilization, it is a WP:FRINGE THEORY. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So you keep saying, ad infinitum. But, of course, it is a theory from what looks to be a reliable source. By definition, that is not fringe. You need to do better than continue to assert something based on your own knowledge, ie: no history books start B before A. In particular, this is so because one clearly does, ie: Sharma. Honestly, cherrypicking policies is not a good idea, and particularly not when you fail to understand how they work. Find some criticism of Sharma or the two people whom he cites please. Or provide evidence that it is not in fact a reliable source. You are stonewalling, as you have done throughout this discussion, and it is neither productive nor collegial. Everyone else is working together. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No I agree with goethean, that it is not a reliable source. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Goethean doesn't say that it is unreliable. They say that more info is needed, which is also what I was asking for & Tito was looking into. You have cherrypicked their comment, just as you cherrypick policies and go off on wild accusations of lying, sockpuppeting etc. Now stop it, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Goethean when he says Sharma "can be striked from the list" and that "Sharma is not one of the most reliable or prominent sources." BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

I thought of seeing how other language Wikipedias are trying to handle this issue. And, I very much like the writing style of Russian Wikipedia. I can not comment on the sources, but, see their writing style below! --Tito Dutta 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

See the page here, here is a machine translation–

I like how its written. What surprises me is that they have no qualms about dating BG to IV millennium BC. Should we "import" their content? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
C.V. Vaidya has written: History of Medieval Hindu India Vol 1-C V Vaidya. Someone with a background in Indian history and access to resources, hopefully someone here, will be able to verify how reliable a source he is. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
How about this as the final draft:
Theories on the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita vary considerably. Jeaneane Fowler writes that while scholars accept dates of fifth century BCE with a later demarcation of second century BCE, she thinks second century BCE to be the more probable date of composition.[5] However, Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya, based on astronomy and Hindu beliefs, estimates the latest date of Mahabharata to be 1432 BCE and holds the view that the Gita was composed between 3000-2000 BCE.[6] Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, on the basis of estimates of dates of Mahabharata, Brahma sutra and other independent sources, concludes that Bhagavad Gita was composed between 5th and 4th centuries BCE.[7] The actual dates of composition of Bhagavad Gita remain unresolved.
Please note I have replaced A.P. Sharma with Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya and included "based on astronomy and Hindu beliefs" as his methodology based upon what goethean said in an earlier post. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. But, I am too tired to examine anything in details right now. :-( Should we invite any primary contributor of Russian Wikipedia article to post his opinion here that how they wrote that section, did they have any consensus etc! --Tito Dutta 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't invite any more editors, we have enough of them here. And since, this clarifies that earlier dates were derived by astronomy and Hindu beliefs there should be no problems of it contradicting Harappa. Lets go with it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Where is this Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya reference? It has not been provided, and as such I object to these edits. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is what Sitush said earlier— "OTOH, it might be better to get the info straight from the horse's mouth, ie: to cite Vaida and Bhattacharya direct rather than rely on Sharma as an intermediary. This is not essential but if anyone has any doubts regarding the credibility of Sharma then we can skip his middle-man role." So there is no problem in citing him and Goethean confirmed that he bases his research on Astronomy. So get on board already, it mentions Hindu beliefs also as a method, so it can date back to 20,000 BCE and still not contradict any opinion. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree with you. I'm just not clear where this Bhattacharya book is. It looks like you are still citing the Sharma book in the reference. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the link to the book. While the contents are not accessible the title says enough. So lets go ahead with the newest version. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, all that we have is the title of Bhattacharya's book, and by itself, that is not evidence for anything. [12]goethean 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay so lets remove the methodology and go ahead with the previous version then. But that wouldn't be acceptable to BA. We can't reach consensus this way. If we go by the rules Sharma should be included as is, since every scrutiny we have done says he is reliable. Or, we can accept this version which is based on a slightly shaky foundation but is nevertheless more acceptable. You decide. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no imperative to use every reliable source. In fact, that would be completely impossible. — goethean 18:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That has been suggested earlier and I was on board. But Sitush and Tito had problems with it. The fact is we have to represent the diversity of opinion, as the Russian wiki does above and beautifully too. Asking Sharma to be removed only sends us in circles again. The newest draft is good, it might not be perfect but it'll do. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that Sharma is one of the most reliable and/or prominent scholars on the Gita. Is he? — goethean 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand this is a long thread but if you go through it you'll find that reliability of all sources has been discussed. Here is an earlier post by me- "His bio is here (under the about author section). As I have said in a post earlier, he looked relevant because of his education and work ex." CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
From the Google Books search results[13], he appears to be a popular author who writes about a variety of subjects like relationships and language rather than a scholar who specializes in Sanskrit literature or ancient Indian history. — goethean 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't prove anything. He has an educational qualification and work experience in the relevant field. If he choose also to write about Self-Help that hardly makes him unreliable. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that we can find a more prominent scholar in the field. — goethean 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sharma or Bhattacharya and Vaidya are not the only scholars that are dating Gita to pre 1400 BCE periods. But among the sources dating it to that period, they were the most reliable. If we ignore Dwarka excavations, most of these conclusions involve astronomy based on scriptures (Hindu beliefs). And the title of Bhattacharya's book title does suggest it. So to best reflect the opinion of these scholars, who date BG to such an early period out of faith in Hindu scriptures, why don't we just go with the newest version of the draft. To ignore opinion of these scholars entirely would be inappropriate, if not OR, for an encyclopedia. Russian encyclopedia shows us the way, lets follow it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Goethean's comments. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If we can revert previously accepted positions to take sides, then this conversation will go nowhere. Fine I am adding the latest draft without Sharma or Bhattacharya. We'll sort out these two later. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)