Talk:Bhagavad Gita/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yoga or yoga?

First letter capital or first letter small– what are we going to use in the article? I am okay with both. But, currently we have mixed up in the article! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The first letter should be small unless it refers to the Yoga philosophy. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Honorifics

Could editors please consider whether the use of honorifics is appropriate? I'm thinking of "According to his method of division Swami Gambhirananda characterizes Madhusudana Sarasvati's system as a successive approach in which Karma yoga leads to Bhakti yoga, which in turn leads to Jnana yoga." where in my humble monoglot Australian I learn that Swami was an honorific. As far as I understand international English scholarly styles, honorifics are usually not used in relation to people with a capacity to give expert commentary. Obviously, I am happy to be wrong, but it does read unusually in Australian english or International academic english. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Swami should be dropped. It is no less an honorific than, say, Shri or Pandit. See WP:HONORIFIC. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Or we can follow the exact article titles in Wikipedia. The requested move to Swami Vivekananda → Vivekananda was declined, as it is WP:COMMONNAME and nationally accepted (and used)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, not content. For example, an article about Raj Kundra does not refer to him as "Raj Kundra" throughout. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I agree, whether we use honorific or not, that is not going to be a big factor here, I think! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
IMO, At first instance, the common name should be used only if it has an honorific. e.g. Swami Swami Vivekanandaat first instance, then only Vivekananda. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

700 slokas! But, in our calculation it is not!

In article the number of slokas we have written 47+72+43+42+29+46+30+28+34+42+55+20+34+27+20+24+28+78 makes 699, and not 700 --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The corrections according to the source are given in brackets: 47(46)+72+43+42+29+46(47)+30+28+34+42+55+20+34(35)+27+20+24+28+78 CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Checking with Wikipedia calculator
700 --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But, your correction is not supported by Gita Press edition, though it is supported by Bhagavad Gita org website --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If Gita press version doesn't add up to 700 it is probably incorrect. I have seen lot of sources acknowledge 700 verses. Are there any that say there are 699 verses? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not have any other source at this moment, but since they are showing all 47 verses in chapter 1 etc, we need to to say they have added one verse from somewhere in Chapter–1 in their book. --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would guess from chapter 6, you can verify this. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Also can you see in your sources– number of verses in Gita Dhyanam– 9 or 10? Gita Press is saying 10– we have mentioned 9! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Problem is that at times 4 lines are combined to make one verse and at times two. Hence, the difference in numbers. You can go with either of the sources. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made changes, since 1) that at least makes 700 2) the sources we have added now, it follows that! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gita Chapter Table!

Hello, User:Adellefrank, Thanks for your edits in this article. But, I feel table is not needed here, as you have done in this edit. Reasons–

  • The was media files have been placed (image, audio file) are are not looking good! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tito, the content, with the image and audio, does not warrant a table.
Your arguments make sense. I was trying to make the overview of chapters easier to scan, but I'm not sure the table format helped. However, I still find the repetition of "yoga" after each chapter and the placement of the verse count in parentheses a little distracting when reading this overview.

Adelle Frank (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Adellefrank, based on your edit here, it looks like you are trying to push this article to GA status. While both you and Tito have done good work here, this article still lacks quite a few things—

  • The contents of the 18 chapters are not referenced.
  • There are still many Swamiji comments in this article instead of scholarly opinions, as noted in the discussion above.
  • The Dharma and Moksha subsections in the Themes section are almost empty of content.
  • Philosophical themes explored in the Bhagavad Gita, such as, Yoga psychology, matter and mind, evolution etc. should be added ahead of structure, which is full of jargon and can put off a reader new to Hinduism. (some of the themes are explored by Easwaran here) CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, I can not understand why you have added Dharma and Moksha blank sections! The main articles you have added they are not on the theme "Moksha in Gita" or "Dharma in Gita" --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
CorrectKnowledge and Titodutta Again, thank you both for your corrections and work on this article! I knew from the original content that Dharma and Moksha were important themes in the Gita, but I don't feel qualified yet to add any details.
Regarding putting Themes before structure, what organization would you suggest to make it less overwhelming for new readers? I was basing some of my organizational choices on how information is arranged on the Mahabharata and Ramayana articles. I moved a few sections around to try and make it less overwhelming at the top of the article. Any thoughts?
Adelle Frank (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Your edits were over all helpful. Hope you have seen it none of your edits was reverted, we made some (minor) changes there. Please remember to use emdash (–) and endash wherever applicable, I faced a hard time to find and correct all. And, you mentioned "Kaurava" as character of Mahabharata which has been removed (see characters section below, and post your comment if possible). And, you removed some content from lead, which made the lead too short in comparison of the length of the article). But, I must say, your edits were over all helpful. As a regular contributor I welcome here. Thanks for all your contribution Let me know if you have any question. --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am planning to create a "Bhagavad Gita" or "Jai Sri Krishna" barnstar. I know there is a Hinduism barnstar already, but, we'll make it a personal user award to acknowledge contribution to Bhagavad Gita article! I have started making a draft. Any opinion? --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Or we can name it: "Yada yada hi dharmashya..." or "Vasudeva Sarvam acknowledgement"– sounds great! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea. What about the quote on "Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kada Chana"? Or will giving a barnstar with this quote become a bit ironic? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have created few barnstars, I think this is my best creation so far, see at the bottom of the page Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2. We can add it in image of the barnstar using some photo editor! Devanagari script or Roman script (or Bengali script, I'll like it (joking :-D))?--Tito Dutta ✉ 12:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The Gandhi barnstar looks good. If you replace the picture of Mahatma Gandhi with File:Krishna_Arjuna_Gita.jpg, change the colours of the tricolour (saffron and blue?) and add a quote in devnagari/roman/even bengali with its english translation, we'll have a winner. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No, no, no imitation and no repetition please! I'll try to make something new. I'll present it as a draft for comments and modification at once it'll be ready! What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it'll take some work but if its new and unique it'll probably have more of an impact on the receiver. Best of luck! CorrectKnowledge (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see these two images. I wish to use these two as header footer of the barnstar. I have not prepared/selected Krishna's image still:
First image

Second image


--Tito Dutta ✉ 14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The images look good, though you might have to resize them depending on the size of the barnstar. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That can be done changing pixel in the code, currently it is 700px: [[File:Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachna animated.gif|700px]] Any idea on Krishna's image? --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You know more than me about copyvio, so you be the best judge of whether or not to borrow images from the internet. Personally, images in the lead sections of Krishna article and the Bhagavad Gita article look good to me. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not, copyvio! I was talking about selecting one from Commons:Category:Krishna there are many image there! Should I change color of the banners above to #FFC569 ? Choose the exact color from http://www.colorpicker.com/ and write the code here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the two images I mentioned above, File:Bhagavata Gita Bishnupur Arnab Dutta 2011.JPG would also suit the barnstar. As for the colour of the banners, it'll depend on what background/foreground colour you are using for the rest of barnstar. Usually, shades of yellow and and blue (bit like #19A6D1) are used to represent Krishna. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No, color is not matching, I think! Still see a demo here --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you make the black background transparent and use a darker shade of blue like #04ABDE or an even darker shade? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
1) Or I can make the font color #19A6D1see demo 2) You mean font color #19A6D1 and bg transparent? No, no, it'll look poor since glow will be spoiled here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The first version with the blue font colour/black background looks good. It will do for the purposes of barnstar. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made changes, see above, if you can not see, bypass cache. --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the updated banners. They'll look good with any of the three images. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's start working the, I am starting draft, make changes --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Drafts

For all your contributions to the Bhagavad Gita article, please accept our gratitude.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Gita dating sentence

The first issue is that the new content does not reflect what the book states. C.V.Vidya and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya supposedley date the Mahabharata (not the Gita) to 3102 B.C. or 1432 B.C. Then by taking an illogical leap, A.P. Sharma speculates on 2000 to 3000 BC as the Gita date. So it is only one person giving that date, A.P. Sharma....not C.V.Vidya and Tarakeshwar Bhattacharya. The second issue I have is that it is an extraordinary claim to say the Gita dates from that time. Every other book says around 300 BCE to 300CE. For example this one, this one, this one, etc. etc. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing you after a long time, how are you? Ya, it seems it is A.P.Sharma's speculation. Or common sense?
A 1) If battle of Kurukshetra was fought in that period naturally Gita was also told by Krishna at the same time. Is not it? 2) Since Gita is a part of Mahabharat, if Mahabharat dates back to 3000 BC to 2000 BC, it'll not be wrong to consider that Gita was also first told in that period (before 2000 BC).
B 3) If we consider Gita was written by Vyasa wrote Gita (as we have written in the article too) then certainly Vyasa can not write Gita after his death (time of Vyasa: 1100 BC and 700 BC). So, if we only mention Gita dates back to first CE or so, we need to immediately disregard 1) it was written by Vyasa 2) it was told by Krishna
Anyway not only A.P.Sharma's speculation. Have you collected Ramakrishna Mission's Gita? I had one copy of the book, but I gifted the book someone so don't have now. If you can collect the book you will get a bunch of good (and very written from neutral point of view) information there. Or I'll collect a copy within next few days. Or I may need to go to local library to collect some good information on this.
To the point reply will be appreciated.--Tito Dutta Message 12:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Also I can see you searched in Google Books with the query Gita 200 BCE to get only those results. Not a good sign--Tito Dutta Message 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding point 1. Both the battle of Kurukshetra and Krishna are fictional. Regarding point 2. Most scholars date the Mahabharata differently. Moreover most scholars say the Gita was a later addition to the Mahabharata anyway. Regarding point 3. The Gita was not written by Vyasa. What is not a good sign, is that you have your own website promoting the Gita here. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding second part how my website is related to this date of Gita related discussion? Have I quoted a portion from my website and presented as a reference here
Regarding first part: the whole article is written like that- Krishna told Gita in battle of Kurukshetra Its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa, the compiler of the Mahabharata etc. --Tito Dutta Message 06:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Tito Dutta, please stop edit warring. Please abide by WP:BRD. You made a bold edit which has been reverted. The next step is 'discuss', not "edit war to add my edit again while discussing on the talk page". Please abide by Wikipedia policy. We do not need the article to say that the Gita was written thousands of years before the date that all mainstream scholars give. — goethean ॐ 14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I concur with goethean. To claim the Bhagavad Gita is older than the Rig Veda and Upanishads violates Wikipedia policy as described here Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
See the article history, I myself removed that portion from the article (edit warring?). There is some basic problem here, if Gita's authorship is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa, Vyasa can not write Gita 2-3 centuries after his death! I do not care if Gita was written in 5000 BCE or will be written in 2013 CE, but we must present the correct information. So once again- we need some studies here to present accurate information. Is anyone interested?
And about making bold edit before adding the book source I posted it in talk page (see the previous discussion), then no one talked about it. --Tito Dutta Message 15:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that you had inserted your addition again.
It is only a contradiction if you assume that the information in the Gita about dates represents a literal description of historical fact. Most scholars view the book as having symbolic religious and philosophical truths rather than being a literal history book. Most ancient books (the Bible, the Iliad, etc) are not reliable sources for literal historical facts, although they contain great symbolic, religious ad philosophical truths. — goethean ॐ 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I again concur with goethean. There is a difference between an attribution and authorship. The Gita is attributed to the immortal Vyasa, but that is not the same as authorship. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And again, similarly, the Iliad is attributed to Homer but no scholar of ancient Greek believes that Homer wrote the Iliad. The same with Moses and the Torah. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I would be fine with the attribution language, with a note that authorship is different. This possibly can be used as a reference (scroll up a little). Some books don't even bother to mention the attriubtion to Vyasa, and just mention several authors of the Gita (see current reference already in article by Dalvi). BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks great to me. — goethean ॐ 16:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Typical western christian arrogance regarding dates. You guys just can't accept that our culture is older than the Judeo Christian culture. Dwarka is an Indus valley era city dating backt to at least 3000 BC. The roots of our civilisation. On that basis itself both the Mahabharata and the Gita are definitely compose dwell before 1000 BC in the Vedic Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.223.161 (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideas and opinions

  1. There are much more Swami Ji, Baba Ji type comments in the article than scholar's works.
  2. The article lacks WP:RS
  3. The article needs some visible references. Currently the references are like this "book abc, page de" now you have no way to verify. I'll try to add some easily available references.
  4. Commentary section is too long. --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Swami Ji comments are acceptable when they add relevant information to the article. For instance, "Swami Gambhirananda characterizes Madhusudana Sarasvati's system as a successive approach in which Karma yoga leads to Bhakti yoga, which in turn leads to Jnana yoga..." is alright. However, hagiographic statements like "Swami Chinmayananda wrote a highly acclaimed commentary in which the Gita is presented as a universe text of spiritual guidance for humanity" can be done away with. Incidentally, this sentence along with a similar sentence on Paramhansa Yogananda is in the commentaries section you want shortened. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, though I have not done enough studies on Swami Chinmayananda. --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In the para, Independence movement, it is said : " At a time when Indian nationalists were seeking an indigenous basis for social and political action, Bhagavad Gita provided them with a rationale for their activism and fight against injustice ". I feel it is wrong to say so. It is not the Gita that provided them a rationale, it is their own mind that created rationale out of its own interpretation and understanding of Gita. Kawaikx15 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Ambition

I think we are (specially User:CorrectKnowledge) is interested to get a GA status for the article! So, I think it'll be excellent if we discuss that is this article truly GA ready, if not what works are needed to be done! --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can also add Adellefrank to the list. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Ask for a peer review before going for GA. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. First better we review it ourselves (by making a task list), then PA → GA etc! --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote at the article's peer review page, I'd be greatly surprised if the article makes it to the GA status. It's a good try, but, IMHO, it still requires a great deal of work on its content, structure, style, and even punctuation, to become eligible as a GAN. If I were you I would not rush it to the nomination yet. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bhagavad Gita/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cinosaur (talk · contribs) 06:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing to review the article. You said here that the article had problems with "content, structure, style, and even punctuation". I and Titodutta will try to take care of any problems you list here. Needless to say, you are free to make corrections to the article too. Thanks again. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The structure of the article is really poor. It is full of "choppy" short paragraphs. One option could be to merge paragraphs that are similarly themed or that have some connection through the content. As an example, "background" and "characters" can be coalesced together. The upper half of the article gives a very "listy" feeling rather than "prosy". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have restructured the content into longer paragraphs and merged the redundant subsections. I have left the characters subsection as it is. It is not really needed, given all the characters are otherwise introduced in the article. However, I feel it might help a reader new to the Gita. Of course, it can be removed if it still makes the article look list-like. Thank you for the suggestions. Regards. --CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have not read the article thoroughly. However, after your restructuring, the look is much better, more prose-like. IMO it is ok to have the short "characters" subsection, as it introduces the principal characters to an uninitiated reader.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I was suffering from an editor's block, if there is such a thing. I just couldn't see anything wrong with the article. Your comments were very helpful and pointed me in the right direction. I will be grateful for any more suggestions you might have. Regards. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments I am not doing a formal GA review. I will make comments as I go through the article, and those will mostly concern prose issues. Also, I may end abruptly.

"The Bhagavad Gita is traditionally ascribed to Vyasa. However, in actuality, the scripture is a composite work of many authors over a period of time". You can tell why it is ascribes to Vyasa (since Vyasa is thought as the writer of Mahabharata, and Gita is a part thereof). My major concern is the second sentence. It says, "however, in actuality". That means, we are absolutely sure that it is a composite work. Are we absolutely sure? I think, some alternate wording might be better, such as "Historians/Noted Gita scholars such as XYZ opibne that Gita is a composite work".

 Done, I removed the sentence. It was original research and a misrepresentation of the sources. The first reference just said that Mahabharata was a composite work, whereas the second one was silent on the issue. Jeaneane Fowler, a separate reference, says that the authorship is still unknown. So I removed the sentence. It was probably POV peddling by a recently blocked sockpuppet. Can't believe I totally missed it. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Professor Jeaneane Fowler writes that while scholars accept dates of fifth century BCE with a later demarcation of second century BCE,...". What do you exactly mean? That scholars accept composition period between 5th and 2nd century BCE? Also, a more descriptive word(s) rather than "Professor" would be better. Indologist? Historian? Expert on Hinduism? Similarly, for Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, who is he? Even Adi Shankara may benefit from some descriptive words.

 Done

"As a Smṛiti, the Gita has no independent authority from the Upanishads (Śruti)." What does this mean? Why would one expect Gita's independent authority from Upanishads? I mean, Smriti is dependent somehow on Sruti? It is unclear for a reader who does not have any idea what these things are. Also, describe briefly what are Upanishads. Similarly, a small description of Advaita Vedanta may be helpful (perhaps within parenthesis).

 Done

"Sanjaya, counsellor of the Kuru king Dhritarashtra, after returning from the battlefield..". Start with "In the epic Mahabharata, Sanjaya, counsellor of..."

 Done

"The Gita begins before the start of the climactic Kurukshetra war, with the Pandava prince Arjuna becoming filled with doubt on the battlefield" See wikipedia:PLUSING. This is a bad use of "with .. -ing". Can change to "The Gita...war where Panadva prince..."

 Done

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment One thing is not clear yet. What do you exactly mean by Gita has no "independent authority". Does it mean that Gita, as a standalone text, is not enough? Or, Gita can not be interpreted on the basis of itself and needs help from Upansihad? Or something else? (this sentence may be very clear to you as you are editing this article whole-heartedly; but for an uninitiated reader, it is difficult to understand).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Smritis are authored and therefore do not have the same level of scriptural/religious authority as the Sruti texts. Basically, one can reject the word of a Smriti as the word of man, but instructions of the Sruti, the revealed word (not necessarily the word of God), have to be accepted. So the scriptural authority of the Gita, for Hindus, is ambiguous because its position as Sruti is not universally accepted. The authority of the Smritis is also dependent on the Sruti in the sense that if something in a Smriti is found to be contradictory to a Sruti text it is rejected. Therefore, smriti of the buddha for instance, is not accepted by the Vedantins etc. I have tried to clarify this in the article since your last comment on it. I don't know if anything more can be added there without making the section completely lose focus. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment continued.

  • The Sanskrit concepts, when the first appear, needs their meaning when the first appear (dharma, swadharma, varna, Atman and so on). You can give short meanings of these words within parenthesis.
 Done, I have left out dharma as calling it duty might confuse readers, given that it is explored in great detail in a section. Likewise, varna dharma is actually varnashrama dharma which is hard to translate. (class-age group dharma? Or the fourfold classification of human life by class and age group?)
  • Non-English words needs to be italicised consistently. However, proper nouns, such as Mahabharata, Gita do not need to be italicised.  Done
  • Remove hyphen in Swa-dharma (used only once).  Done
  • "... is often interpreted as the varna dharma or the duty of a warrior". Varna Dharma does not mean duty of warrior. For Arjun, it means duties of a warrior, as he belongs to warrior varna. This should be clarified I think.  Done
  • " However, both Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan see...". Who are they? give short intro (Hinduism expert/ Gita scholar etc).  Done
  • "A synthesis of knowledge, devotion, and desireless action is given both, as a prescription to Arjuna's despondence, as well as, the way to moksha". The sentence structure is probably not correct, could not understand the meaning.
 Done, I have modified the structure slightly. Tell me if the meaning is clear now.
  • "Since it is impossible for living beings to avoid action all together, Bhagavad Gita offers a practical approach to liberation in the form of Karma yoga" So, does Gita (or any commentator) mentions "Since it is impossible for living beings to avoid action all together", or is this just a comment (tending to be original research)?
 Done, This is paraphrased from Jeaneane Fowler's comment: "Karma-yoga takes the common-sense view that it is impossible to avoid acting in some way or another, simply because we are living beings." It is definitely not original research, but if you want it to be phrased better or in a more formal language it can be done. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Associate Professor of Theology Catherine Cornille writes...". Associate Professor where? Which university? Rather, you can tell "Theologist Catherine..."  Done
  • "It has been highly praised not only by...". Do not start a paragraph with a pronoun.  Done
  • In the Influence section, do we have any more instances of general influence rather than influence on notable individuals?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The general influence is in the Independence movement and Hindu revivalism and Neo-Hindu movements sections. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Message to reviewers

I can not understand what is happening here?! Primary contributor reviewer has already thought of quick-failing (or failing) the article, then we can not find him (he has to give final verdict). And another editor is reviewing here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Correction --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well any comments/suggestions here will not go waste. If this article is failed then they'll be saved for future reference and if the review is voided then they will be copied into the new review. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Who is the primary contributor? I thought Correct Knowledge is! And I am not reviewing the article, as I have already mentioned above. These are just some comments on the prose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, ok, you meant primary reviewer! That's ok, primary reviewer can review the article at his/her own leisure. I am not concerned with the outcome here, we are just doing the work :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
(a) A quick check showed that not all the statements in the article are verifiable by the sources cited. For instance, the statement "Verses of this chapter are thought by scholars to be panentheistic" is attibuted to Southgate (Southgate, Christopher (2005), God, Humanity and the Cosmos - 2nd edition: A Companion to the Science-Religion Debate, Continuum International Publishing Group), but there are no "scholars" cited in the source to substantiate the claim that the verses are panentheistic except Southgate himself, who is a theologian but not a scholar on Hinduism.
 Done This was a case of WP:WEASEL rather than fake referencing, but changed it anyway.
(b) The article relies heavily on questionable sources, including those published online: [1], [2], [3], [4] as well as non-academic works by members of various Hindu religious organizations such as Chinmaya Mission, Ramakrishna Mission, The Divine Life Society, ISKCON, Advaita Ashrama, Sri Aurobindo Asram, The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation etc., and non-academic publishers like Heart of Albion Press and Vedanta Press, and even a translation by a musician Winthrop Sargeant. For instance, the entire Overview of chapters consists of close paraphrasing of such online materials of questionable credibility as WP:RS. Obviously such works cannot be used as reliable sources on this topic.
To sum up, over 60 of the 125 references in the article are to doubtful sources. This had to be addressed before the article was nominated for GA, preferably at the peer review stage. I'll reserve my further comments on this GAN until I get a reply from the nominator, but from what it appears, the article fails on this single count alone. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS suggests:
Policy Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
I concede Chinmaya Mission, Ramakrishna Mission, The Divine Life Society, ISKCON, Advaita Ashrama, Sri Aurobindo Asram, The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation are not academic sources. But let us look at whether the authors these houses publish are reliable or not. Jeaneane Fowler, former Head of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Wales College, a reliable author by any count is cited only once (by Abelard, Peter. Historia Calamitatum). Compare this to the fact that Easwaran's The Bhagavad Gita alone is cited 76 times. Again, as per WP:USEBYOTHERS:
Policy The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability...
Regardless of the fact that The Blue Mountain Center of Meditation publishes Easwaran's work he is still the source for Gita in academic circles. Likewise, Aurobindo's Essays on the Gita (published by Sri Aurobindo Asram) is cited 141 times (in two languages), Winthrop Sargeant is cited 29 times, Chinmayananda, Vivekananda etc. etc. are all notable, well cited sources. I was actually surprised you brought Sargeant up given that his book is also published by SUNY, that makes him reliable on both counts (yes he is a musician also). Websites of ISKCON, Bhagavad Gita Trust (Bhagavad-gita.org) etc. are used primarily for quotes and overview of chapters. We have verified the translations to the quotes used in article by multiple sources (gita press and a few other non-english ones). However, we refrained from citing all the sources sources per WP:CITEKILL. As for the overview of chapters, Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed suggests that "If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details". Therefore, the 18 or so sources of Bhagavad-Gita.org are really redundant. Nevertheless we still think its better to have them there.
Please also note the context in which the sources have been used. The author is usually mentioned before their sources are used (e.g. " Eknath Easwaran writes that..."). Besides, so many comments of so many scholars are mentioned only for WP:NPOV's sake, to accommodate as many viewpoints on a theme as possible. I think I have given ample reasons why the "60 of the 125 references" are reliable. You are welcome to examine each of them in detail. But as I had said earlier, you cannot quickfail this article. Therefore, only take it up for review if you have enough time and energy. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
PS You might want to take back your comment on close paraphrasing. I almost missed it on first read. Only two phrases in the whole section on overview of chapters "extols the glory of devotion to God" and "universe is pervaded, created, maintained, and annihilated by His" are similar to their sources. These alone do not qualify as close paraphrasing. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 22:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced about.com and sacredtext.com references completely and BG.org in composition and significance section with five better sources, thanks for pointing this out. I have also reworded the two phrases mentioned in my previous comment. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Status

What's the status of this review? More than one month with no activity--Tito Dutta ✉ 13:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

reviewer hasn't edited since August 19th. Since the writer has responded to concerns, I would say that a new reviewer should finish this up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a primary contributor here in this article, I can not review it. The nominator is under a 6 months topic ban (I don't know it'll affect in this article). If he can not edit in article, I'll try to respond to new reviewer's concerns. --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the scope of the nominator's 6 month topic ban include this article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize to the nominator and the article contributors for having been unable to complete the review (or edit Wikipedia in general for a few months) due to extenuating circumstances in RL. Even though the article has been failed anyway, given its importance I want to see it become FA one day. All the best. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review 2

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The layout of this article leaves a lot to be desired. The "composition and significance" section does not explain why the Bhagavad Gita is the most important part of the Mahabharata, who thinks so, or if anyone disagrees. The second section contains two lists. I am of the opinion that for a work of prose any lists of chapters should be at the bottom of the page so that readers can enjoy a narrative summary before they break up their understanding into 18 pieces. The next section is "themes" but we are not really sure why these are the central themes. These could be better integrated into the "background" paragraph.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Contrary to the prior reviewer I find that the references are sterling. The facts are there, they just need better organizing.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Although I am personally aware that this is a decent summary, it is unclear from the way the article is laid out if everything in the poem was really covered.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Did not check, but I imagine more suitable images are possible
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This is a C-class article struggling to become B-class. Please rewrite it and submit when you are done. Shii (tock) 06:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How could Arjuna forget the teachings of Gita so easily and quickly?

There is a school of thought that believes Conversation of Gita never took place during the Mahabharata war and was later added and attributed to it. This conversation marks the imparting of divine wisdom by God to Man, so to change the nature of Man into divine one, carving an image of God in man. If it had actually happened as suggested during the war, nature of Arjuna would have altered definitely but that is not the case. Gita suggests the disolution of ego - sense of individuality, anger, lust. It promotes surrender, equanimity to outer events, concentration on God. Arjuna reflected no such change after the supposed conversation. He subjected himself to anger time and again during the course of war despite the fact that God was a constant reminder of his supposed teachings, in front of him as his Charioteer. He mourned over the deads, whereas Gita chides at such practice. Could Arjuna forgot the conversation so easily and quickly? I suggest we should add this angle to the main article so to make it more objective to the readers to create their own opinions freely. Kawaikx15 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And your scholarly, secondary theological sources for an apparently original theological interpretation are? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My comment is based on the teachings of Sri Aurobindo and his work on Gita - ' The essays on Gita '. Aurobindo's interpretation of Gita is based on his spiritual experiences and his learning of Rig Veda. kawaikx15 Saurabh (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Some have criticised geeta. We need to add a section to mention them and answer them as well. ~rAGU (talk)

As one step I propose to add an external link which shows the Christian perspective of Gita's teachings (www.christiansinindia.in/bhagavad-gita/). It is not a criticism though, but a different approach. It would be also interesting to see how adherents of other religions perceive this text. Nikil44 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A Buddhist criticism might be provided by Ambedkar's opinion on the Bhagavad Gita since he is a famous representative of Buddhism (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4397889?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101668358431). A Muslim critical response on the Gita can be seen on http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/167261-the-teachings-of-hinduism.html. What do you think about adding such links? Nikil44 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you add those links to DMOZ instead? The external link section is prone to spam and in April 2012 it was decided not to add any more links to it. The section now links only to DMOZ so adding these links there might be better. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 14:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I dont think christiansinindia.in and onislam.net are WP:RS nor do they satisfy WP:EL. I suggest adding all praise/criticism under reception section, no point in creating separate "praise", "criticism" sections. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I am an adherent and I would like an opportunity to criticize and answer some propaganda and criticism from well meaning as well as some distractors.~rAGU (talk)
We should be careful not to create or emphasize controversy WP:CRITICISM provides valuable guidance on this issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Bhagavadgītā

Bhagavad gītā should be read as a single word (भगवद्गीता , Bhagavadgītā ). I think its a Tatpurusha samasa. (Just like we say "bhelgadi = Bhelo ke dvara chalne vali gadi" - we dont write it "Bhel Gadi"). Please correct me if I am wrong? Nagarjuna198 03:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done See added references or DMOZ links --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Netaji and Gita

http://hinduinspiration.blogspot.in/2011/04/netaji-subhas-chandra-bose-truest.html

See this,and include my edit.Ovsek (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • That blogspot is not a WP:reliable source. --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree, any publications on blogpost are personal blog web sites and per WP:RS they are not reliable sources for this encyclopedia.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2010/Jan/engpdf/18-26.pdf

1. Social Concept: (a) Views on religion, communalism etc,here this is also referred.Ovsek (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Etc??Have respect man.It should be also added here as well as in the main article.Ovsek (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I have much more respect for Vivekananda, Bose, Gita than you can imagine! I am a primary contributor of all these articles and portals! You need to concentrate on formatting! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why Netaji accepted monkhood in his teen and used to study Gita constantly(Karma Yoga),these are not mentioned?!Ovsek (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ovsek, I appreciate your passion for the subject and your good intentions to improve the article. However, please be civil and show respect for others. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. This means we often have to compromise and discuss. On other matters, this PDF by Roy seems to be a good source, especially if he is PhD (the article does not specify). A topic like this should have lots of high quality academic sources for use in the article. And what we editors do here on WP is to neutrally summarize the best quality sources on a given topic. So our personal views have to be kept separate from our activity of summarizing reliable sources per WP:RS. So take it easy and work collaboratively with other editors who may be more experienced than you and who can help you to learn the WP policies and culture and work productively within that culture. Many thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.But I found this also. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-20/bhubaneswar/35932625_1_museum-and-exhibits-memorabilia-netaji-birthplace-museum-janakinath-bhawan Ovsek (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Where does it mention Bose was influenced by Gita? I'll see if I can find a source later! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 05:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.indiaonline.in/About/Personalities/Freedom-Fighters/Subhash-Chandra-Bose.html Read in "Philosophy" section sir.

"Subhash Chandra Bose believed that the Bhagavad-Gita was a great source of inspiration for the struggle against the British." Thank you.Ovsek (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You can also find it here-http://readanddigest.com/subhash-chandra-bose/ You can also find it in many book. Perhaps nothing is Reliable Source?eh?Thank you.Ovsek (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As it is

Why is this image in this article? is this even a respected translation?(user:mercurywoodrose)108.94.0.171 (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Correct, irrelevant image in the lead section. Did not have not free rationale too. I have removed the image. --Tito☸Dutta 04:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, i had not worked here before, and was concerned it was not being watched.(merc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.0.171 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 August 2013‎ (UTC)
  • Generally messages at talk page are answered. But, sometimes we miss talk page messages too. In such situation there are other ways to get help, asking at Help Desks, Teahouse, related WikiProject Noticeboards (for example here WikiProject Indian and WikiProject Hinduism, if you see top of this page, you'll find the links). --Tito☸Dutta 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Influence-section

I think this whole influence section is quite useless. It does not tell what the influence of the BG is or was; it only gives some appraisal. If anything can be discerned from this, then it is that the BG apparently plays a central role in Neo-Vedanta (yeah, yeah, here he gHello?oes again...) But what this role is, and why, how it influenced those people: nothing about it. This book might be interesting in this respect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

About half of the section seems influence, half seems appraisal. Your book reference looks potentially valuable. Your summary of what's in the section does not seem accurate. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A deliberate irresponsible editor?

The Bhagavad Gita is NOT dated by it's written text, its dated by its ORAL history of kings,tribes,land marks and so on, The gita was handed down over thousands of years by mantras, take BUDDHISM for example, buddhism was handed for 500 years as mantras before it was finally written down in Sanskrit/pail ect, before that time the monks would pass Buddha scriptures down in vocal mantras.

The Bhagavad Gita Means, THE SONG OF GOD! pay attention to the word SONG, the gita is not dated in written form just like the Torah is not dated just in its written form of 400bc, we know that the scriptures state that Krishna city was washed over by Hello? the sea and that city has been found in Dwarka, The history channel made this clear that artifact brought up in that location sailed past the 5000bc mark which is correct with indian scholars, i do not want to hear this page being influenced by out dated European scholars from the 19th century to 1995, we live in 2013 so be kind enough to treat this page with respect to its correct dating of the Gita.

Even the Jewish page has stated its book was in oral form first, i mean is this page being edited by a educated hindu or just a christian who wishes to not give the full information?82.38.161.217 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) markvedic

Please read WP:RS regarding reliable sources, and WP:GOODFAITH and WP:PERSONAL regarding "is this page being edited by a educated hindu or just a christian who wishes to not give the full information" - and refrain from such statements! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • +1 with Joshua Jonathan Tito☸Dutta 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical spelling of Krishna / Kṛṣṇa

Someone has been repeatedly reintroducing the nonsensical spelling "Kṛiṣhṇa" into a particular quote in the article, despite multiple editors' attempt to correct it. First of all, the original source (Michaels p. 59, see online here or here) carries the standard academic spelling Kṛṣṇa, and we should in general not tampeCanyouhearme?r with quotation. Even if we do (and that we should do, without comment, is not clear), let me state it very clearly:

  • Acceptable spelling: Kṛṣṇa (academic convention; see IAST, and also the spelling used in the source)‌
  • Acceptable spelling: Krishna (common spelling in English — note: no diacritics)
  • Unacceptable spelling: Kṛiṣhṇa (here these diacritical marks on 'r', 's', 'n' don't mean anything, in any known system. This spelling is not found anywhere on Wikipedia (hopefully), and does not occur except in archaic works over a century old.)

I'm going to fix the spelling for now (again); please discuss on talk page with reason (like the above) before reintroducing the incorrect one. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita in the Light of Thinking and Destiny

Hi Joshua : ) What do you think about adding a small section on the Bhagavad Gita Wiki recognizing the work of Owen Slight? He did translate the whole Gita and it does make total sense in the light of Thinking and Destiny if you read both. Is this where we talk or should I have made a section on your talk page? Thanks for your help Whatrwe2do (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy this thread to the Gita-talkpage. There is a section on Bhagavad Gita#Contemporary popularity; you could add a subheader on "Influence". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope I did that right! ThanksWhatrwe2do (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Both Thinking and Destiny and Owen Slight's The Bhagavad Gita: The Song of the Exalted Self are self-published works of little scholarly notability. For example, I didn't find any reviews or discussion of either on jstor; the former is only included as one of the "Books received" in this list, which shows little beyond that the work exists. Thinking and destiny is at least held by a non-neglegible number of libraries (308) according to worldcat; Slight's book is held by just five. Given all this, mention of either works on this page is undue, and frankly the articles Thinking and Destiny and Harold W. Percival themselves need to be reviewed for notability; I suspect that the latter may be notable as an occultist, but the article need significantly better sourcing to be retained on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge request

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Oppose Someone proposed a merge request, did not care to start any discussion and merged himself within 24 hours. Please do not make disruptive enough. The topic is broad enough to have its own article(s). --Tito☸Dutta 02:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose' Senseless list of quotes; are we also going to add the opinions of those who reject the Bhagavad Gita? I've reverted the merger. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest merger to Wikiquote [5]. Appraisal section summarises the views. Influence of Bhagavad Gita is not developed enough to be retained as a separate article and should redirect to the Appraisal section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Good idea. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, into Wikiquote is the home for this. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikiquote info should be separate from main article.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no official guideline about opposing quotes into articles. It is good to have separate article about the comments about Gita, maybe the quotes were undue here that's why other page was created. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism?

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

Yogananda and/or his gurus have a dubious lineage.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been on Wikipedia for years now and understand the guidelines. What you did Victoria was take out a significant 2 volume commentary on the Bhagavad Gita from a well known and respected author. You will need to prove to us on wikipedia why you think it shouldn't be on this page. Also, explain to the community why removing this volume is not vandalism when you deleted it without bringing it in to question on the talk page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Red Rose 13 edits exclusively Yogananda related pages. Red Rose 13 should stop accusing others of vandalism when they delete Yogananda related material. I had two edit summaries which were clear.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Victoria is deleting things from wikipedia that she has judged from a dubious lineage. Wikipedia is a place of facts and not for personal preferences nor judgements - Neutral Point of View [6] Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Red Rose 13 edits exclusively Yogananda related pages.VictoriaGraysonTalk 07:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Potential source

See here The article as well as the book might be useful sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Spelling

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

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

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

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

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

Date of origin of Bhagavad Gita.

By not fixing the exact time of origin of Bhagavad Gita wikipedia is really hurting the cause of Hinduism. Wikipedia may be publishing many accounts from incompetent sources and in the process garble up the truth. I have seen that happen on many web pages on Hinduism, for example the origin of Sankhya philosophy. I am not opposed to Wikipedia putting up web pages on Hinduism, because on the whole they are good. But if the adminstraters are not able to discern what is accurate, then they should rather keep Hinduism out of their encyclopedia. And Hindus should unite and put up their own web pages and not allow incompetent people to destroy and misrepresent their cultural and religious heritage.

On 18.8.2014, Radhakrishna temple in Mathura celebrated 5240th birthday of Lord Sri Krishna. This would put the delivery of Gita to Arjuna at Kurukshetra before 3150 BCE. At what time the book was compiled and all that is immaterial. This is also connected with the origin of Sankhya because Snakhya and three Gunas are mentioned in Gita (3.3) and Ch. 14. Wikipedia article puts the origin of Sankhya between (400 BCE and 1500 BCE). This is nonsense. Sankhya was the first to mention three Gunas and if they show up in Bhagavad Gita, then Sankhya is much before 3150 BCE. Actually Sankhya is much before any of the Upanishads and Gita is juice of all the upanishads.

Recently a scientist made a comment on a scientific web site that Inertia is a very old concept that goes back to Aristotle (382 - 322 BC). So I had to correct her that concept of Inertia goes back to Kapila and Sankhya which associates one of the three Gunas Tamas with inertia, coarseness, heaviness, obstruction, and sloth.

Another scientist commented: For the first time, Empedocles established four ultimate elements which make all the structures in the universe: fire, air, water, earth. Aristotle later added a fifth element "ether" to describe the void that fills the universe above the terrestrial sphere. So I had to correct this gentleman by informing him that: Regarding your comment on Empedocles (490 BC) and Aristotle (382 - 322 BC) I have to mention that the five elements are mentioned by Sri Krishna (born 3226 BC) in Srimad Bhagavad Gita verses 7.4, 13.5 and 13.32.

Such incidents are so frequent that Hindus are now very much used to them. Kingcircle (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

lawsuits filed

Is there any info on lawsuits filed for use of the gita in courts. Most of bhagvad gita laws seem dubious and catering to female psychology and appears to make decisions very difficult.

If there are none maybe someone with contacts to indian courts should propose abandonement of the bahgvad gita, it is heavily influenced by female psychology anyways and is not core hindu belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.143.173 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Christian Propaganda

The Bhagawad Gita has first spoken exactly 5200 years ago. There is ONLY one single version of the Gita. Christians propagandits want us to believe that Gita "evolved" bla bla undermining the fact that Gita was spoken by God and is being continuosly protected by God since then. The first section of this article is RUBBISH and I'm in no mood to read further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7A:401:2F22:3489:6002:55D1:6FE (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no Christian Propaganda. This is the what historians and research have found so far. The same case applies to any other religious texts. Have you not read what the Wikipedia says about the Bible? There is no exact date for the Gita so far, and there's no proof that it was written by God. It was written by humans. Knightplex (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhagavad Gita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

German anti-semitismSection: "Use in German anti-Semitism"

This ection seems undue to me (I've already attributed it):

[According to Vishwa and Joydeep], German indologists arbitrarily identified "layers" in the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita with the objective of fuelling European anti-Semitism via the Indo-Aryan migration theory.[151] This required equating Brahmins with Jews, resulting in anti-Brahminism.[151]

The reference is as follows: Vishwa, Adluri. Bagchee Joydeep (2014). The Nay Science: A History of German Indology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 289–426. That's 137 pages... Someone tell me where exactly this "info" is given in this source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC) NB: it probably must be pages 156-313, which contain chapter three, "The search for the original Gita". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

All I can see are snippets surrounding search terms, so lack of context could be a problem, but from p.306 I get “Further, for all that German Indologists claimed to be concerned with Brahmanic oppression of the lower castes, they made no serious efforts at its abatement. Their Brahmans were creatures of their own imagination, caricatures of rabbis drawn with brown chalk.” Nothing about textual layers in this particular passage, but the thrust of the criticism seems to be that the epic was depicted as an original expression of Aryan warrior-caste culture having been corrupted by the decadent, effete priestly class that became its custodians & transmitters. (There are numerous hits for “layers” throughout the book.) BTW I think the authors’ names are getting mixed up: in the section as it stands now they’re cited by their surnames at the beginning and by their forenames at the end, and here you give them inverted.—Odysseus1479 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
JJ, see HERE. They summarized their book with page numbers.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Reviews:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The main point of critique by Adluri and Bagchee apparently is not that German Indology was anti-semitic, but that their search for the 'original core' of texts like the Mahabharata was influenced by questionable assumptions, which in turn were influenced by Protestantism and the search for a German identity. They also seem to critique an overly "rational" approach to religious texts, which loses sight of the philosophical and pedagogical use and value of texts. See John R. Lenz, From philology to philosophy: Plato, Nietzsche, Classics, and The Nay Science: "The Nay Science reminds us what the humanities should be: the ethical education of the self, with awareness of mortal human existence in the cosmos. In short: even scholars need to use books to change their lives; and if they don’t, who will?" A valuable and readworthy critique, I think - which may be bypassed by highlighting the specific comments which were used in the quoted passage above from the Wiki-article. Yet, it's also what the authors themselves highlight:

It is this same absence of concern with ethical questions that we found most troubling about Nicholson’s review and that, aside from his technical confusions, prompted us to write this response: In a book that is entirely about how Indian studies were used to fashion anti-Semitic narratives in Germany we fail to understand how someone can review the work and fail to mention anti-Semitism even once. Oversight? Or, possibly, a decision to downplay the problem of anti-Semitism in German Indology? The theme of anti-Semitism connects chapter with chapter, building up to the conclusion that German Indology was institutionally and methodologically anti-Semitic. p.5-6

yet, I wonder if this belongs here, or at Indology or a another, related page? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhagavad_Gita/Archive_4&oldid=1136561671"