From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism / Vaishnavism / Krishnaism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vaishnavism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject India / Odisha (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Odisha (marked as Top-importance).


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move, and common name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

JagannathJagannatha – Though in Hindi the word "Jagannatha" is pronounced as Jagannath (with virama) originally in Oriya[1][2][3]and Sanskrit it is written and pronounced as "Jagannatha". Considering the original language name the page should be moved to "Jagannatha".--SubhaUtter2me! 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Question; is the name correct, as the Sanskrit form? I believe it is Jagannatha in Sanskrit, and should be written so here. Imc 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe 'Jagannatha' is usually spelt as Jagannatha, but pro-nounced as Jagannath when spoken. Maybe spelling should be adjusted? GourangaUK 08:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That pronounciation is only in certain languages including Hindi, but not Sanskrit as originally spoken, and not some modern languages either. I know that many Hindi speakers say these names without the final full 'a', but it's the Hindi that has changed. There is a continuing problem in getting consistency in naming here, but the general trend has always been to use Sanskrit forms for religious subjects. See . Now if Jagannath was a name that originated in that form, say in the Hindi language, that would be different, but then we need to know the origin. I believe the name is old and from Sanskrit. Imc 16:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Imc is absolutely correct on the Sanskrit-to-Hindi dropping of the final inherent 'a' (Juggernaut etymology). I believe the Sanskrit (and Hindi) spelling is जगन्नाथ (jagan-nāth). The question I have is, is there a local name for the deity, in Oriya or whatever the local dialect of Puri happens to be? Khirad 12:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
In line with Imc's comments above does everyone agree that the article should be moved to Jagannatha as this is the more appropriate spelling? We would have to request it, as a page already exists with that title. Gouranga(UK) 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Every name must be spelled according to its native pronunciation. The very name is pronounced as 'Jagannatha' in Puri itself. We should be least bothered regarding how it is pronounced by Hindi or any Non Oriya tongue. Hence, the existing spelling must be rectified from Jagannath to Jagannatha.--Mwhatw (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Jay Jagannatha.I'll say in simple words that, though there are some changes in the pronouncing of Odia words while speaking in other languages. We can't change the actual spelling of the word Jagannatha instead of Jagannath according to other language. So My suggestion is its better to rename it or move it.--Jnanaranjan sahu (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose. It really does not matter what the language of origin is. Please confine your discussion to relevant Wikipedia policies; in this case, WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy, and it clearly states that "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural". Reliable English-language sources should be used to establish the common name. Subha has listed only 3 handpicked sources, which do not reflect the common name. Lynch7 14:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Jagannatha is the right spelling. Please don't stick blindly to the English Language Sources Only, because only a native can make correct spelling and pronunciation to his/her mother tongue. You might have known that, a lot of spellings have been revised and some are in the process of revision according to the original indic spelling /pronunciation. e.g. Calcutta to Kolkata, Orissa to Odisha. Please don't ignore the original spelling in the case of absence of sufficient English language sources. It's not fair. ଜ-Ja ଗ-ga ନ୍ନା-nna ଥ-tha is the right spelling, ask any one who is born and brought up in Odisha. Most of the foreigners who visit Puri, the temple town of Lord Jagannatha, call Jagannatha, Balabhadra and Subhadra as Jaggarnaut, Balvader and Suvadra because they are not accustomed to spell such words. To the local people, it looks very funny. I will also mention that, unlike Hindi and Bengali, Odia language is more saturated in spelling and pronunciation. A word without any vowel sign always ends with vowel sign A,(ଅ अ অ) to make it complete. e.g. ଫୁଲ in Odia is PHULA whereas फुल in Hindi is Phul ফুল in Bengali is Phul. So please look into these aspects also. ସୁରଥ କୁମାର ପାଢ଼ୀ (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oriya spelling of Jaganāth[edit]

The article currently gives the Oriya spelling as ଜଗନ୍ାଥ, this is composed of the letters JA-GA-NA-virama-AAsign-THA. I think this is illegal Unicode since I am not aware of any semantics for a virama followed by a dependent vowel sign. From what scribblings I can get here by people in Purī, I guess that the sequence without virama ଜଗନାଥ would be correct. Can anyone with knowledge of Oṛiā check? (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Significance of "Belgium" (as a link) on very first Photograph?[edit]


Today, I browsed the link to see some information on keyword "Jagannath puri". Please refer -

The very first photograph on right side which states the text below Photograph

"Jagannath (far right) with his brother Balarama (far left) and sister Subhadra (center) in Radhadesh, Belgium"

My question is - why "Belgium" (as a link) is referred here (last word of above text) and what does it signifies ?

Now when i enlarge this photograph the word belgium is no where found.(Also there is no link of Belgium to jaganath Puri as far as i think).

Please refer (for enlarge photo) (enlarged)

Any suggestion/solutions on this ?

- Gaurav Bhambri

I suggest you google "Radhadesh", or "Radhadesh, Belgium". Took me 5 seconds to find out what was the link between Radhadesh and Belgium...
Alphos [bother me] 06:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus in India?[edit]

I am sure there are plenty of alternative histories for Jesus Christ. The idea that Jesus went to India and learned the Vedas is kind of cute, but seems out of place in a Wikipedia article. (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting[edit]

I will have to do some research on that, sounds interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm009 (talkcontribs) 00:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting[edit]

I will have to do some research on that, sounds interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm009 (talkcontribs) 00:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Room for Improvement[edit]

The present article is highly sub-standard keeping in view the breadth & depth of the subject and the information base on the Cult of Lord Jagannath.
Irrelevant material have been placed in the present article.
Contributions from serious users are solicited to clean up and standardize this article, which pertains to a very important aspect of Hinduism.
Softdynamite (talkcontribs) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits made by User:Psubhashish : Comments[edit]


Jay Jagannath. I am excited to see your interest in Lord Jagannath. I have gone through your edits and appreciate those.

1. Your attempt to put Oriya script in the etymology part is laudable, but unfortunately it's still not working. Please consider to attempt with a different font.

2. I disagree with your edit that Jagannath is an 'epitome' of Lord Buddha. Your referred site [], is neo-Buddhist propaganda page and the claims made therin are not reliable. Also for your kind information, Buddhists no longer visit the Jagannath temple for pilgrimage. Also see Buddhist pilgrimage, the name of Lord J. or Puri are completely missing. For the arguments and reasons of scholars like Starza, Panigrahi, Kulke, et al, it is more or less accepted in the academic circles that Buddhist origin of the Lord is redoubtable. The Crypto-Buddhist touch is due to the extensive assimilation that the Jagannath religion has gone through. Therefore, I am undoing certain part of your edits. If you are not satisfied, we will discuss the issue further.

3. Yes, I am sorry, Odia and Odisha are more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softdynamite (talkcontribs) 18:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Subhasis wrote:

1. I am sorry to inform you my intention is not to add some irrelevant content about Jagannath's connection with Buddhism , you seem to be very serious about proving your points that the All Hinduism content are right and Buddhism are wrong, my intention is to add valuable content, be it related to Hinduism or Buddhism. And Buddha Sangha doesn't support controversies, so you never find content related to Jagannath in those articles you have mentioned. And the corrections need a native speaker, I doubt if you even have Odia font in your computer, Odia language has no "Halanta" so "Jagata" is more appropriate than "Jagat". The reason I added the Odia script is to make them easier and don't anything harmful, things become easier when they are expressed in the natural form.
2. Secondly if a word has a Odia language origin, where is the point of writing in an uncited text saying that it is derived from Tatsama Sanskrit words? Please make changes with a neutral and secular way without considering the religious. I am not against Hinduism, but writing some content saying that Jagannath is an epitome with citation doesn't harm Hinduism. Plus simply deleting any content doesn't make the idea weaker that Jagannath doesn't have a similarity with any other Hindu deity, which gives a way to search more about the origin. And simply deleting the content hurts and blocks more ideas to come front. --ସୁଭପାSubha PaUtter2me! 13:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply - Edits made in Article Lord Jagannath[edit]

Dear Subhasis,

Jaya Jagannatha. I am an Odia and a native speaker, if it is at all relevant.

1. It is never the assertion that "All Hinduism content are right and Buddhism are wrong" - the impression of Buddhism on the Lord's evolution is too obvious to be ignored. But what I contend is that 'Jagannath' at Puri is not an epitome of Buddha. Even if we accept that Lord J. is a buddhist deity, he can not be equated to Buddha/Gautama. Even in Indrabhuti's Jnana Siddhi, Jagannath was a deity whose consort was Vimala.
2. Use of Odia fonts is a most welcome thing, but if u use an open unicode type font, it would be better and the page would be legible in place of font errors like - "ଜଗନ୍ନାଥ" (5 squares) as I see on the screen. Please consider using *.jpg images in place.
3. Your contention that "simply deleting any content doesn't make the idea weaker that Jagannath doesn't have a similarity with any other Hindu deity" is not in proper direction. In view of this user, the idea that Jagannath is a tribal deity [Jaganeola/Jagana Kittung/Dadhi vaman/Purusottam Narasimha], who has been subsequently assimilated into Hinduism is undoubtable. I certainly agree that the Lord's origins are not in Hinduism, but I strongly disagree that it is Buddhist, instead.
4. Any topic on a deity can never be secular, by whatever measure. There has to be religious angles.


(talkcontribs) 22:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment and comments[edit]

The article has many issues to be tackled in its way to GA status:

  • The complete lack of inline citations is the biggest hurdle. Please go through Wikipedia:Citing sources for more info. Dates, theories, quotes needs inline references.
  • See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking):
    • Links should not be there in headings.
    • Ideally, a word should be linked only once in an article. Subhadra, Balabhadra, Indradyumna et al are linked several times
  • The honorifics like Lord, Shri et al should be removed.
  • External links go to the end of the page. Not in middle
  • The spelling of Jagannath (Jagannatha, Jagannātha) is inconsistent in the article. Stick to one spelling
  • Remove the <br/> tags used in formatting
  • Some claims like "Jagannath is non-sectarian" are absurd. I can provide numerous references where Jagannath in his present state is considered a Vaishnava deity
  • Sentences like "not a member of the traditional Dashavatara" in the lead look out of place and contradictory, when the article says that Jagannath is portrayed as ninth of the Dashavatara in Orissa.
  • The article should only focus on Jagannath - the deity; not his Puri temple or Puri in general. Topics like "Geography of the Jagannātha Centre: The Samkha Kshetra" are WP:UNDUE (Read this link). While the discussion of the historicity of the Puri temple is necessary to establish the history of Jagannath, discussion of its architecture is undue. You can go through the FA article Vithoba, a regional form of Vishnu-Krishna, who has 1 primary temple at Pandharpur and a controversial pre-history and identifications with other deities. Vithoba article as well as deity is similar to Jagannath in many aspects and the Vithoba article faced similar issues while development.

I will limit my suggestions to these for now and after you have actioned on them, I can present more comments to have achieve GA status.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Target GA status[edit]

started work on improving language and adding references


Comment Initially posted on User talk:Redtigerxyz: I have almost cleaned up and referenced the article Jagannath. About some of the points you made in 2011: Jagannath is believed by many of his devotees to be non sectarian.there are numerous references some of which i have quoted.I have added a note on Jain origins.In an article in the Oxford university journal Avinash Patra calls Jagannath the cause of all avatars and not an avatar. The idea that Jagannath is an avatar is a concept which the Jagannath temple in Puri is trying to impose since 90 years which has been strongly objected to by scholars and devotees. I will search out the new paper articles if you like. Hence these views deserve to be represented.

Could you have a look at the article when you are free. We can discuss and make any modifications

The weak point at present is the article is missing on the ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaishnavism connections.That is something i am not well aware of .If you could add a chapter on that in the article it would be great.

Also I hope to ask for a peer review it soon sids (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Jagannath as Krishna is a popular view. In the present context, many RS refer to him as primarily a form of Krishna, a Vaishnava deity.

Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment Initially posted on User talk:Sidsahu: Jagannath is referred to as Krishna by many WP:RS. He is primarily a Vaishnava deity. This needs to be noted in the lead. I have collected a list of encyclopaedias/dictionaries/RS that define Jagagannath as a form of Krishna. As before, I will equate Jagannath with Vithoba, a god with many identifications (Buddha, Shiva), but primarily Vaishnava (Krishna-Vishnu). Also, the Krishna is more ancient than 90 years. It is at least found in Sarala's Mahabharata, in which Krishna's corpse somehow transformed into the Jagannath icon. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been going through journal articles and books. Sarala Das calls Jagannath both Buddha and Krishna.His story of Jara Savara and the Krishna relic is mentioned in the article. .The article describes him as identified as a form of Vishnu, If you insist on Krishna in particular, thats fine as long as the caveat, that he is also identified with all the avatars is put.Many authorities are emphatic in explaining the assimilative nature of Jagannath covering many aspects of Hindu and other deities. To explain the Vaishnav view adequately i feel a chapter on Gaudiya Vaishnavism and ISKCON is badly needed , for it is these schools of thought that have identified him as solely the Vaishnav deity and with Krishna in particular.Now to the contentious issue:

1) Jagannath is seen as solely a Vaishnav deity by the Vaishnav schools of thought, this view is widespread in people outside east india and in many books referring to such sources 2) For the people of east india Jagannath is thought of as the universal deity with a Vaishnav bias. There r even articles and books to mention Jagannath has both masculine and feminine aspects. He wears sarees and a nose ring to emphasise the dual sexuality of the divine. I didnt add those which would confuse the article more.But there is a very very strong Shakta Tantric and shaiva influence which you must have come across while researching on Vimala Temple which cannot be ignored. 3) Simple put Jagannath gives darshan in the form of any god the devotee desires.In memory of the marathi devotee Ganapaty Bhatt , he dresses once a year and is worshipped as Ganesh In the words of the historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar[1] :

"The diverse religions of Orissa in all ages have tended to gravitate towards and finally merged into the Jagannath worship, at least in theory"

and that sir is what causes the confusion.Sidsahu (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Jagannath is many associations in the past, but now he as the refs say a Vaishnava deity with remnants of Shakta and Shaiva traditions. While researching for Vimala Temple, I found the same. By the 17th century Vaishnavism won over Shakta and Shaiva traditions, almost getting rid of them. There is multiple refs that say Jagannath is now primarily a form of Krishna or Vishnu. This needs to be clearly stated. I do not know how exactly Gaudiya Vaishnavism and ISKCON views him, but certainly as a form of an all-pervading Krishna. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope I have made the Jagannath as Vishnu more clear in the intro 2 chapters.Gaudiya Vaishnavism sees him as Vishnu alone and does not support alternate identity Sidsahu (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC) p.s: started work on Vaishnavism section Sidsahu (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jagannath[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jagannath's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 09:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. the orphan reference has been rectified

Sidsahu (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Jagannath considered as Buddha is not a mainstream view. The Mukherjee ref says that Jagannath = the Hindu Buddha avatar is a Hindu POV. The Jamanadas book claims many Hindu gods/temples like Tirupati, Pandharpur, Draksharama, Sabarimala are Buddhist in nature, not a mainstream views. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. . Jagannath as the 9th Avatar of vishnu is controversial, the article clearly states it with reference.
  2. . Sarala Das called Jagannath as Buddha.Indrabhuti called Jagannath Buddha.The Buddhist origin theory of Jagannath is stated by Alexander Cunningham[a pioneer in Indian archaeology],discussed by western scholars Kulke [got a Padmabhushan for his work on Jagannath]], Eschmann, Starza,Indian experts: Mahatab, Nilkantha Das, avinash Patra, etc.Even buddhist scholars like Angarika Dahrmapala have accepted merit in the buddhist argument.This theory is discussed in the article with the weak points pointed out too.The conclusion also points out that the Tribal origin theory is the most likely of all theories

Sidsahu (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  1. A similair question has been raised in 2011, see the talk page above, but they dont seem to have resolved their differences.Do you know any buddhist experts on wikipedia so that we can get the correct Buddhist POV.

Sidsahu (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I think if in the intro Jagannath is worshipped by Buddhists is removed , POV wise i think all will be well. Sidsahu (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, (Sorry to be unclear) I was just questioning "worshipped primarily by Hindu and Buddhist[1][2] people" and "Buddha by Buddhists" in the lead (ref Mukherjee and Jamanadas). Buddha replaced with Jagannath in Orissa is well documented and needs to be in the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@retigerxyz:Have a look, the point you made has been rectified in the lead Sidsahu (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


  • The etymology of Balabhadra and Subhadra is WP:UNDUE.
  • (as an elevated platform or "Ratnabedi" ... ): can't understand what is the context here? Why is this sentence in etymology?

--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

point 1 : removed. point 2: tried to clarify, will also ask a Wiki Orissa administrator to have a look Sidsahu (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MKar has referenced and checked the etymology section,I hope the problem is solved Sidsahu (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Metaphysical attributes[edit]

  • Ref 18 is dead
  • "Jagannath is described as an Avataree i.e. the cause of the Avatars, and not merely an Avatar of Vishnu." This is a POV and should be presented as such. He is also described and depicted as Buddha avatar for centuries. [1] [2] He is also equated with Krsihna.
  • Jagannath is venerated by Non Vaishnav sects as well.... para is pure WP:OR. Jagannath being equated with various deities does not mean that their devotees worship Jagannath. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Scribd is not WP:RS. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. link rectified
  2. avataree pov rectifiede
What about the POV he is an avatar? Only the avataree is highlighted prominently and the other POV is dismissed as a controversy. Neutrality is questionable. The ref clearly states that the controversy is recent in nature. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. References to show all sects venerate Jagannath added
  2. trying to find a better source for Markandeya's story

Sidsahu (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OR still. No mention of Ganapatya in reference. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
OR still. Dadhi Vaman has no relation to Vamana avatar. Also, only Patita Pavana is Dadhi Vaman. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. Ganapatya mention removed
  2. Dadhi vaman as vamana avatar removed.However jagannath as vaman avatar is expanded and more ref added.Jagannath when worshipped alone is Patita Pavana. the 3 are synonymous
  3. The controversy is not that Jagannath as Avatar. The controversy is the 9th avatar is Jagannath not Buddha[as mentioned in the article]

, because puri temple authorities tried to erase the mention of buddha as an avatar of vishnu

  1. Both view of avatar and avataree is now given a more balanced representation
  2. Jagannath as non sectarian is mentioned in an encyclopedia [one of the references] , hence it is not OR

Sidsahu (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Iconography and physical appearance[edit]

  • Rename to Iconography. Both words same thing
  • Ratnavedi is UNDUE here. Are all deities needed here? Should the description stop at the triad?
  • William Bruton's description is WP:UNDUE
  • "The deity of Jagannath is about 6 feet tall (1.83 m)". "The deity of Jagannath" seems wrong. Image of. Also state that you are talking about Puri icon. Other icons also exist
  • No description of Jagannath as human in Kanchi conquest portrayals or as in lithograph

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Iconography of Patita Pavana. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Myths and legends of the origin and emergence of Jagannath[edit]

  • Rename "Myths". Merge Kanchi conquest and Patita Pavana here
  • Mahabharat of Sarala Dasa: Wrong Mahabharata linked. Link to article on Sarala's work. The is missing
  • It should be noted that... para. References needed. OR alert
  • in the Satya yuga -> the not needed.
  • Puranic text Purusottama Mahatmya: not text, it is a section of the Skanda Purana
  • Italicize texts
  • Indradyumna was a Lunar Dynasty king of Somavamsa lineage: Somavansha means Lunar Dynasty. Redundant
  • the great God -> god. Common noun
  • RS value of ref 33 is doubtful
  • "In this world I will...." Quote needs ref.
  • returned to Malava: Vidyapati returned to Avanti ???
  • the Purusottama -> the not needed. Purusottama is not introduced
  • Brahma: a non-Hindu may not know that he is a god. Mention that
  • Tense problem: went/took (past) and then agrees (present). Make it uniform
  • on Vaishakha Sukla, on Pushya star.: what does this mean?
  • Explain jargon: murti
  • Club the common Vishvakarma part as well as relics of Krishna part. Repetitive. Reorganization of section needed.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mythology of Jagannath[edit]

Skipping some sections

  • Gajapati Purushottam Deva -> Purushottam Deva. Title not needed every time
  • Amar chitra katha is not reliable
  • This myth has been recounted by Mohanty [91]. J.P Das [92] . Name authors when citing views. In this text, they are not authors of the tale, so not needed.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jagannath/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC) This looks like a fascinating article, with a lot of work having gone into it, so I'm happy to give it a GA review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is often clumsy, while the article's structure is messy. It could really do with a good, thorough copy edit to enhance clarification.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead does not summarize the rest of the article accurately, requiring a good copy edit and rewrite.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Some sentences do not carry references.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. While some good references are used, I do not think that it is properly comprehensive in its use of academic sources (i.e. from anthropology, religious studies, history and archaeology), while many other statements throughout the text are un-referenced.
2c. it contains no original research. Large chunks are unreferenced, so might constitute original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Way too much detail in certain sections, such as the "Epigraphic evidence of Jagannath and the timeline"
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but this is a fail, although a lot of work has clearly gone into it. I'd recommend sending it to peer review in the hope that you can find a really good copy editor who call pull it into shaoe. Good luck in future ventures though! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Siṃhadeba, Jitāmitra Prasāda (2001). Tāntric Art of Orissa. Evolution of tantra in Orissa: Kalpaz Publications. p. 145. ISBN 8178350416.