Talk:Bhagavad Gita

GAR

Bhagavad Gita

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted Although the nomination for re-assessment is rather vague, I found a number of long outstanding citation needed tags and dead links. The prose could certainly do with a brush up and the organization of the article is poor. I would suggest a thorough clean up, followed by a peer review before renominating at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I request the re-assessment of the article bhagavad gita, because :

• The article does not provide relevant information in the relevant section.
• The introductory paragraph sounds awkward,as it contains referenced appraisal by some other persons, which is not the way to introduce a major book of a major religion of the world and may not represent a worldwide view of the topic.
• The article, related to a major religious book is relatively less informative and neutral than the other major religious books of the world , like quran,bible or guru granth sahib.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)‎
  • Comment: I see no evidence that primary editors or projects have been informed, which you should do. I fixed the article talk page as the GAR template had not been transcluded. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Spelling is incorrect: भगवद् गीता (bad grammar)

People who haven't learnt संस्कृत वव्याकरणम् (Sanskrit grammar) well enough do this mistake quite often. In English, while one may write as "Bhagavad Gita", while writing in Sanskrit (Devanagari script), one must either write as भगवत् गीता or as भगवद्गीता

The व्यंजन संधि (Vyanjana Sandhi) in Sanskrit works like these:

• जगत् + ईश = जगदीश (see how letter त becomes द)
• भगवत् + भक्ति = भगवद्भक्ति (see how letter त becomes द)

The term भगवद् written independently is incorrect.

Reversions of edits by Ellis408 to Gita main page

Dear Aman.kumar.goel and Rasnaboy - I spent a day editing the main Gita article and was surprised that all my edits were reverted diff diff without explanation, except the second one cited lack of references, which made no sense to me.

I added a form of disambiguation, to make it easier to find the articles on 4 notable English translations of the Gita. Deep in the article, there is a table listing dozens of translations, with links to these four, but that makes it unlikely that a person looking for one of the four translations will be able to find it. Here is the entirety of that edit (they are listed in chronological order):

For specific notable translations, please visit:

• The Song Celestial by Sir Edwin Arnold
• Bhagavad Gita - Song of God by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood
• Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
• God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita by Paramahansa Yogananda

The other section I edited was in the "Promotion of just war and duty" section, which seemed an appropriate place for this perspective from a notable author and co-translator of the best-selling English Gita, who happened to be a Conscientious Objector in WWII. This is that section in it's entirety:

Author Christopher Isherwood, who was a Conscientiousness Objector in WWII and co-translated Bhagavad Gita – The Song of God with Swami Prabhavananda. In the Appendix, Isherwood authored an essay on The Gita and War. Isherwood suffered his father death in WWI and saw no effort by the allies to avoid getting into the next war. In England he was a member of the Peace Pledge Union, and during the war, while in the US, he did alternative service with the Quakers.

In the Appendix, Isherwood explains that the Gita is neither pro- nor anti- war. In certain circumstances, it would be quite alright to refuse to fight. In Arjuna's position, since it's a righteous war, and he's a warrior by birth and trade, he must fight.

In the purely physical sphere of action, Arjuna is, indeed, no longer a free agent. The act of war is upon him; it has evolved out of his previous actions. At any given moment in time, we are what we are; and we have to accept the consequences of being ourselves.

Only through this acceptance can we begin to evolve further. We may select the battleground. We cannot avoid the battle.

The only reason given for reverting my edits was lack of references, but the 4 translations have stand alone articles and don't require any additional references. That Isherwood was a CO is well documented in his biographical wiki article, and the quote comes directly from his essay - and this particular quote is the basis for his argument, which is referenced.

Perhaps this would fit better in the "Allegory of war" section, or combine the "Allegory of war" and the "Promotion of just war and duty" section into one section titled, "The Gita and War" as both are on that topic.

I really don't know what the objection is; all seemed pretty standard to me. I'm hoping we can come to one mind here. Please let me know your thoughts.

Let's discuss. Best, Ellis408 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article; it does not open with links to specific translations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

HI Joshua - Got a suggestion? I think if's an important idea. I put it at the top, before the article, where other disambiguation stuff occurs. The issue is if anyone is looking for a specific Gita, they have to enter the exact title - or it just goes to the main Gita page. Other translations are really buried in the article. I saw it as helpful. Best, Ellis408 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ellis408 That is not how our articles are written. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Also, most importantly, read Wikipedia:Edit warring — DaxServer (t · m · c) 02:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not at war with anyone, sorry if my comments gave that impression.I did one reversion, and then created a section on the Talk page to discuss the issue. I'm just asking for help for how to assist Wiki users, in this instance, to find what they are looking for. It's an unusual situation, in that if someone is looking for an article about, say, the A.C. Bhativedanta's Gita, or any of the other three that have their own page, they have to go way down in the article, to a table that lists dozens of translations. If it could put it into the top Gita (disambiguation) section that would be great. Not a war - just a discussion. Thank you. Ellis408 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This page does not need translations that lack context. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just added the three translations to the Bhagavad Gita (disambiguation) page. The fourth one was already there. I was hoping for a more visible solution, but this will do. Turned out that there was another translation already there, that I didn't know about. Thanks for the suggestions. Ellis408 (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Date created

Another source says the first written copy was made in 1492 but it says this book was made way before then so could I have the evidence for it being made long before 1492 Dopplegangman (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Reversion

Joshua Jonathan, you reverted this edit by me [#1]. Can you let me know if we can quote the Bhagavad Geeta for the verses in it or not?-Haani40 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, not in this way. You are basically interpreting a WP:PRIMARY text; that's WP:OR. Regarding my second revert diff [#2], you are using sources which are not WP:RS, write in a non-encyclopedic tone, and break the flow of the text. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

At WP:PRIMARY, it says,

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Can you write out a sentence with a reliable source for one of the verses from the Bhagavad Geeta? I will do the rest.-Haani40 (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with this edit?[#2A]-Haani40 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

....and what's wrong with this? [#2B]-Haani40 (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I can't. You just shouldn't give your own interpretation of the Gita here. And if you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

So, if I use a secondary source, say a commentary on a verse, can it mention the verse or should it not mention the verse it interprets?-Haani40 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

#2A

diff - "It is described as an open discussion between Arjuna and God" - duplicates

The Bhagavad Gita is set in a narrative framework of dialogue between the Pandava prince Arjuna and his charioteer guide Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

So, to that sentence, can I just add, "<ref name="UUA.org 2024 g525">{{cite web | title=Handout 2: Excerpts from The Bhagavad Gita | website=UUA.org | date=2024-03-07 | url=https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/bridges/workshop4/handout2 | access-date=2024-04-01}}</ref>" as a citation/reference?-Haani40 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that? A text from an unknown auther, hosted at a website of the Unitarian Universalists, is not exactly what we call WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

#2B

diff - presenting mythology as historical facts, using non-WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Need a permanent protection for this page to prevent vandalism

Bhagavad Gita is one of the main scripture in world and so many cults try to perspective edits by jealous specially shaivism, so plz protect this account permanently . 2409:4071:4DBD:495E:E592:8C16:2012:76FA (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)