![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! -- Regent's Park ( Rose Garden) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thanks a lot, pls do so when you get time. Also I you had given some very valuable comments before regarding improving the article. Pls share them if you have any. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you could look at Fascism#Political spectrum. The introductory sentence of this section is not supported by the footnotes, and much of the section is devoted to "left-wing fascism", which is not described elsewhere in the article. There has been discussion, but it has not been resolved. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might be able to help, but many thanks for the advice. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to keep myself away from te articles I used to edit. Don't know why... loss of interest perhaps. But things may change. -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes at Bhagavad Gita. In fact I just realized my mistake, "Nikhilananda says that according to Shankaracharya and other teachers" has been written (by me) as "Nikhilananda says...". I will fix it up by looking into the book. Thanks a lot. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 06:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare: I've been trying to repair references in several articles where someone hasn't properly added the footnotes. Only the URL shows up, not the name of the reference work or its publisher. There are several needed repairs in the first part of the Dharavi article, for example, but I can't figure out how to work on the first part of the entry. The first edit section appears at "Geography." We're left with these types of references (which look unprofessional): ^ http://realtravel.com/karachi-reviews-a5241058.html ^ http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20071006.htm ^ http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060619/slum.html ^ a b c [1] My question: Is there a way to edit the very top of this entry or is that something only an administrator is permitted to do? Thanks! -- Amsterdam360 ( talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Amsterdam360, here is how the references to website, newspapers etc can be formatted.
The commonly used citation templates are {{ cite web}}, {{ cite book}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ cite news}} and you can see the whole list at Category:Citation_templates. You may also find WP:CHEAT useful.
Even more important than citation style is the quality of source being used (see WP:RS). For example in the above list, the realtravel.com website is just a generaic travel website with no known reputation for fact-checking - therefore it is not acceptable as a reliable source (even though such sources are widely used on wikipedia). Dawn is a respectable mainstream newspaper and therefore is considered a reliable source in general; however the article being cited is an opinion piece (rather than a news article) and such commentary should in general be cited only for the opinion of their authors and not for facts. Furthermore the article does not even mention Mahim and Sion, so it cannot, in any case, be used to support the sentence, " Sandwiched between Mahim in the west and Sion in the east, is Dharavi."
The Time article, on the other hand is perfectly fine as a source. Note though that it says, "Dharavi has a population of between 600,000 and a million", so the sentence in the article ("Dharavi has a population of more than 600,000 people according to the Time Magazine."), though technically correct, can be made more accurate. Also, we need a source for the first part of that sentence ("Spread over an area of 175 hectares"), since the Time article does not say that.
I realize that this may be more information than you asked for. Use whatver you find useful, and feel free to ask if you have any questions or comments. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 03:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have been using method 5 - takes more work, but it's more professional. I don't have the right,however, to remove references (like those you've mentioned above)? I can just make the format better? Please confirm. -- Amsterdam360 ( talk) 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks, greatly, for your help! Looks like our discussion has been useful for other editors, too. And ... I'm watching this page, per your other message. Cheers Back! -- Amsterdam360 ( talk) 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I stumbled onto your talk page - as one does somehow - and found that your section above was very helpful. In fact I've taken the liberty of adding the line below onto my own page. User_talk:Abecedare#Repairing_Reference_Footnotes_for_Dharavi - great tips on making good Wiki references. So thx again. Trafford09 ( talk) 14:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Abecedare, Thank you for your message reproduced below:
Rodolfou, You are welcome to add criticism at the AOL poage, but you'll need better sources than blogs and webistes like Yunus news, Answering AOL and Guruphiliac blog. Guidestar is fine as a source, as long it is used to make factual and verifiable claims about the income and expenditure of AOL, and not to draw editorial conclusions (let the reader do that!). Please see wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:NOR for more information. Abecedare ( talk) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
1 - Regarding acceptable sources under wikipedia policy WP:RS and WP:NOR:
1.1 -
Yunus news is a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in particular the article
[1] abides by
WP:RS.
1.2 – The ex AOL-teacher 'resignation' letter
[4] indeed falls within
WP:RS#Self-published_sources to be used “only in limited circumstances, with caution. I consider the criticism of someone who was a teacher in the organization to the organization so relevant and useful that it justifies its inclusion in the article with caution. Regarding
WP:NOR and
WP:NOR#Neutral_point_of_view and
WP:NOR#Verifiability the principles apply equally to all the AOL websites sited; in my evaluation both the AOL own-site sources and the former teacher letter do not violate
WP:NOR and should not be deleted; if they do violate
WP:NOR they should both be deleted to provide balanced treatment.
1.3- Regarding factual information versus editorial conclusions of the source you do accept I propose the following text and accept suggestions for its placement:
2. I am also welcoming your opinion on these two possible additional sources amd relevant quotes:
While critics also label him "guru to the rich and famous," Shankar defends the right of the wealthy to inner peace
also available at the authors blog.
I do believe that breathing techniques are very common. They are also very effective — otherwise they would not be so commonly endorsed by various schools of thought. Vipassna is also a breathing technique that claims its lineage to the Buddha himself. What SSRS has done is what a few dozen Indian gurus have done and will no doubt continue to do–packaging of what already exists. In the US, that simple core wrapped in a few hours of homilies sells for $250 (with a concession for students.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfou ( talk • contribs)
Someone brought this discussion to my attention. As the editor of Yunus News, I of course gladly give some comments
1. First of all: For people who are so into 'accuracy', just a quick remark. My surname is 'Slaats' and not 'Slattas'. 2. I could make a long stream of comments on the lack of solidity regarding the arguments as to what makes a source or person 'reliable', but since the once proposed by Abecedare are coming from the wikipedia WP-RS guidelines, i'll gladly agree with them within the medium of Wikipedia. So I also readily agree with Abecedare on lots of points. Although it wasn't meant to be initially, Yunus News turned out to be a one-man enterprise. So I must agree that Yunus News probably as a site does not attain the WP-RS standards, when applied strictly. Wiki-rules are wiki-rules. 4. To say that I am not an expert on the subject is quite another thing. I do feel that my CV indeed points out that I in fact am an expert on the matter and that my reactions and openness on my subsequent Answeringaol-blog amply support this. Therefore I agree with Rodolfou here and thank him for bringing up the points under his (or her) 1.1. (although strictly speaking I probably again do not meet the criteria of some wikipedia guidelines, but the criteria put forward by Abecedare do not seem to be criteria for expertise. They are criteria to determine 'academic authority', and are certainly not the same) 5. The resignation letter might also not pass the Wiki-rules, but if you would like to have it pass them, then just go to Guruphiliac, contact Jody, the editor, and ask him whether he can bring you in contact with the author of the letter.
Now, to finish - and here I actually would like to make my biggest point - even if you would not use my article as some sort of example of criticism, then please go through my answers on various AOL-claims [3]. I quote enough sources there and I use more then enough factual and logical arguments so that one or two at least should be able to be put . You don't need my article itself for proving criticism, you need the arguments and references I give in the article to show critiques on AOL. So all in all I do not see why my article itself should become the topic of a discussion. The referenced arguments (like for example the pseudo-scientific claims or the controversy around Maharishi, etc.) should be put on the Wikipedia AOL-page, not the fact that Yunus News criticizes it. Should you wonder why I do not put those things on the Wikipedia AOL-page myself, then my reply would be that I do not feel the need to start a whole Wikipedia-debate. I think I would tire soon of the 'editing-war' that goes on on that page. I've done my part on the discussion, and like I said, you find it on my blog. If anybody can use the facts I offer there, then let him or her feel free to use them appropriatly. But please, there's no need to drag me or my writings in to it. The facts and arguments I offer, are worth enough in themselves.
In any case, thanks for this nice, civil and actually interesting discussion. And thanks for inviting me to join.
Hi! You reverted my edit on the India article which used a map of India without its claimed territories. It was suggested on the People's Republic of China article that I should not use a map which shows claimed territories in its infobox. I argued that to be neutral, we should show the controlled territories in dark green and the claimed territories in light green simply to present greater information and more inclusive of the various points of view. Why is it that the infobox on the China article may not depict claimed territories but the infobox for the India article may? ( Talk:People's_Republic_of_China#Map) -- Shibo77 ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment added Also since I have seen what you are talking above, It is illegal to display the Map of India in any other way except the Survey of India, Map. PoK and territory ceded to China is territory lost as a result of aggression, it is not a hypothetical "claimed territory", please be careful. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
New comment added Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Can you keep an eye on User:Adil your. He's disrupting massively. An admin who doesn't know anything unblocked him recently. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Can you pls review the article Sarada Devi and share your comments? This has undergone lot of changes and I am the only major contributor. So I want others to review it. Thanks. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
response 70.112.4.25 ( talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for the feedback,Appreciate your valuable comments. I see that you are using the comparison of number of books found in library. Very logical and true. but in my opinion ,spirituality is very different from other fields. For example --There are less number of Ferrari's on road ,that does not make it less notable.
Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers.
If the article is deleted ,I am afraid that new users will not be able to enter and modify the existing article.
Just wanted your suggestion on ,how to improve the article. Amarhindustani ( talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Amarhindustani ( talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Within the article the {{Science in India}} template has science links that one needs to navigate, including the mathematics and astronomy link. The other links were laid out so that those interested in history of science in general may find other regional articles to enjoy. Vedic science is more of an invented modern concept and is, in my opinion, best left out since it compromises not only the integrity of a science article but may also affect its stability to some extent. Wishing you the best, JSR 0562
JSR 0562 06:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Its hard to see how this article will survive! Sites like http://www.astromatrimony.com/ are being used and seems like full of OR. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for clarification at my talk page. If I was mistaken, I'd like to learn what to do differently next time. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As one particular user complained that I was manipulating things in the RFC, I am withdrawing it. You may continue the RFC on your own interest but I have nothing to do wih it any more.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 03:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Since you are very active on the Gita article, probably you will have suggestions on this new article. Thanks. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
hello abecedare... your comment here was totally on the mark.. it is not the book I care about but this comment said by taylor at a press conferance which is reported in the book .. I have found the quote in another book as well ...both books have been disputed by the other editor on the page.I actually don't care about the books .. it is the comments reported from the press conference that I want to include...
Broader question: I just looked at the article talkpage, and it appears the point of contention seems to be what Charles Turner said at a press conference after an event (1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I assume). Since the comments were made at a press conference, aren't there contemporaneous media accounts about what was or wasn't said ? Why are we having to look at POV sources for this information ? Has anyone searched Lexis-Nexis ?Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
here is the detail of the reported press conference...I have written to the statesmen-journal requesting clarification about the quoted comments .. do you have any ideas as to how I can go forward to get these comments at the press conference acceptable to wiki? you mentioned lexis nexis ..what is this?
here is all the imformation I have ..
On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.
Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh". " We felt that if he left the country, the movement would be disbanded,´" Sending him to prison would have simply served to cause him to be a martyr" To a reporter from The Dalle Weekly Reminder, as reported in that paper of july 24th, 1986. Turner said; " If the Bagwan had been kept in jail, the sentence " would have had a unifying effect on his followers". By leaving he caused the destruction of the commune, which is what we were after".
any help on the way forward would be appreciated. regards. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the barnstar. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Saw that you added back the image -- I removed it previously because it is up for deletion because it's free use rationale is unclear and it is probably a copyvio. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope you will be leaving the same message on User talk:Adam.J.W.C. since he has continued to edit war on that page. Nikkul ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
On the topic of Romila Thapar, I have seen very little constructive criticism coming in from editors who were already present. If you scroll up from the latest section on the talk page, most of my questions were left hanging there. Editors who had reverted my edits did not care to explain why, for example, Praful Bidwai is more notable/correct than Arun Shourie? Why criticisms cannot be placed on Thapar's bio? Why does the article/editors don't accept any changes to the body? And so on.
Also, in the present context of the "marxist" tag, I have not received any logical explanations as to why the references I have given are not valid. See you on the talk page. Nshuks7 ( talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:3RR does not say that you are editing and I am reverting. It says, "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." and both of us have reverted by that definition.
- But no, I have not run afoul of 3RR: see the BLP exemption to understand why. You have not contravened 3rr either, yet.
- Of course, if interested, you can get a second opinion on the above points. Abecedare ( talk) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion on your talk page: I haven't learned how to archive stuff yet. Anyway, the BLP rule says libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced material. I take it you think the material is "poorly sourced"? That brings us back to why? Can you answer this on the Talk:Romila Thapar? Nshuks7 ( talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In the waning days when Indian and Indian topic-interested wikipedians increasingly spending very little time here (understandably so), I would request and recommend you consider running for adminship. We are in need of some fair-minded and cool-headed people and you appear to be one. -- Docku: What's up? 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
<deindent>
I know I suggested moving this discussion to the noticeboards earlier, but on second thought it may be better not to. Else, there is a chance, that if and when a WPINDIA member is nominated, someone will charge that other project members were canvassed for their votes. Don't know if such argument will carry any weight, but better to avoid it in the first place.
Abecedare (
talk)
03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was Bharatveer, but it appears that isn't so. The following are Confirmed as one user:
Block as you wish. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Judging by the nonsense on Poverty in India in January 2009, I think this dispute is probably caused by animosity caused by people taking things like Monkeygate and Matthew Hayden's comment on India being a "third-world country" too seriously. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not kidding, each time a controversy breaks out, some rich middle class Indians who obviously don't see beyond their servants to the slums claim that India is more developed than Australia, and a lot of Australians claim that Indian education system is easier, which it isn't. Most Australian uni students can't spell without a machine spellchecker. YAM is for bureaucratic paperwork. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You claimed I was unfairly playing the victim. If you read something like this, and then compare and see that many of the opposes are actual members at Wikipedia Review, I think your claims fall flat. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Was there a reason for this? Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A third time to nail home the sapiential salience:
Dharmic Traditions such as Sanatana Dharma, Jaina Dharma, Buddhadharma and Sikha Dharma, for example are traditions of Dharma. Often glossed Indian religions by Western discourse, where the term 'religions' is understood as an acculturation and culturally colonizing attribution following post-colonial discourse. In addition, to categorize Buddhadharma a 'religion' is culturally insensitive and incorrect given it is at core non- Deistic and non- Theistic. There is a need for meta-analysis on core assumptions. There is, and has been, and continues to be; an agenda in the -isms and the obscuration of the relationship of the manifold traditions of Dharma
.
B9 hummingbird hovering ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Buddhism, by 1860, had come to exist, not in the Orient but in the Oriental libraries and institutes of the West, in its texts and manuscripts, at desks of the Western savants who interpreted it. It had become a textual object, defined, classified, and interpreted through its own textuality.... By the middle of the century, the Buddhism that existed "out there" was beginning to be judged by a West that alone knew what Buddhism was, is, and ought to be. [8]
Thanks and Regards to you -- Bhadani ( talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it seems the new user is making too many copyvio and test edits, but please do go easy on him. Newcomers can be slow to learn, but still ultimately useful. Shreevatsa ( talk) 00:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Most of the articles I work on are highly sensitive articles where people bring lots or sources that they usually synthesis. For instance, someone brought an article from The Economist, a reliable source overall. The article said a specific country could be considered an economic superpower, and used that source to say that country was a potential superpower. Though an economic superpower and an emerging/potential superpower are two completely different things. As a country doesn't need to be a economic superpower to be considered a potenial superpower, and vice versa. Also, I just use non-Or as SYN technically falls under WP:OR. Deavenger ( talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.21.172 ( talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I put a link to a collection of Sanskrit short stories on Sanskrit. You removed it and gave the reason only as "undue/spam". I disagree.
The link is for one of the most important collections of Modern Sanskrit on the Internet. Hence, it is not undue. On the contrary. The amount of Modern Sanskrit available on the Internet is not large, which means that a collection such as this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Including a link to such a site is comparable to the several links on New Latin which take the reader to modern Latin compositions.
I have no connection with this site nor with its authors, and I included the link on a relevant page. Hence, it's not spam.
Where would be a better place for this link? Under Further Reading, which includes sections for Introductions, Grammars, Dictionaries. Perhaps one more section should be added Readers. Would you suggest placing this link on the Sanskrit Grammar page instead? Interlingua 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternate suggestion: I see that Sanskrit already links to another page ( A Practical Sanskrit Introductory by Charles Wikner) hosted by http://sanskritdocuments.org/, which also hosts the stories by Naphade. How about linking to the the mothership Sanskitdocuments.org itself instead of its subpage(s) ? That way readers can navigate to the learning resource that is of their interest and level of knowledge. Let me know what you think. Abecedare ( talk) 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for helping me. Do you know any good, knowledgable editors who can help out on how to properly source and document government filings and certificates? I am with a winery and sometimes I want to edit our page to make corrections from anywhere from types of grapevines that we plant to our size. I'd like to be able to use an outside source as the reference, which are government census, certifications, filings, general bureaucracy that isn't online, but can be obtained. Know anyone who can lead me on how to reference those things? Thanks! Mowineguy ( talk) 12:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see another editor has joined in. Dougweller ( talk) 13:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot; But I still have a long way to go! -- Nvineeth ( talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Hornplease's version is better. How do we replace the current version by it? Just do it in one fell swoop? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Btw, would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will push me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. (I mean I haven't even copyedited it in a long time. Shameful.) And, if you don't mind, I might copy this post on the talk pages of a few other people. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, I'm rewriting Bhakti (old version [5]) into a more encyclopedic and less sectarian article (at least that's what I hope I'm doing!). If you have any thoughts or sources, or could keep an eye on it, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Priyanath talk 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Mumbai for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
For letting me know. Mitsube ( talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at rewriting the article based on the best references I could find. Since my family was not big on puja growing up :-) , I may have given undue weight to one thing or another. I also was perhaps overly aggressive in deleting the essayish and unreferenced bits, so I encourage you to clean up after me. Priyanath talk 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how are you? It's been long time!-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an opinion on which English Bhagavad Gita translations would meet the highest standards as a reliable source and especially for quoting stanzas in articles? There are so many, with different qualities of poetry, clarity, and accuracy, rarely all three. The one that is most commonly used on Wikipedia (Bhagavad Gita As It Is) didn't get a very high review in the one scholarly comparison I read, in a JSTOR journal article by Larson. [6] I don't currently have access to JSTOR, or I would look again. Thanks, Priyanath talk 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Gerald J. Larson has thoughtfully surveyed the stylistic and interpretive trends as exemplified by many of these translations in “The Song Celestial: Two Centuries of the Bhagavad Gıta in English,” Philosophy East and West 31 (October 1981): 513–541. Of the readily available translations, Franklin Edgerton’s (1925; reprint, Oxford, 1944) is the most literal, so literal in its attempt to preserve the Sanskrit syntax, in fact, that, for the sake of balance, it was originally published together with Sir Edwin Arnold’s transformation of the text into Victorian poesy (Cambridge, Mass., 1944). Though Edgerton’s always reliable translation is difficult to read, his lengthy commentary is masterful scholarship. The interpretive notes that accompany the translation by W. Douglas P. Hill (London, 1927) remain an important contribution to the literature. Étienne Lamotte’s Notes sur laBhagavadgıta (Paris, 1929) is a fine example of rigorous exegesis and reflection.
R. C. Zaehner’s lucid translation (Oxford, 1969) is a pleasure to read and his analyses are as judicious as they are sensitive; Zaehner introduces the insights of Sankara and Ramanuja where they are appropriate and he admits his penchant for the theistic interpretation of the latter. For a more detailed understanding of Ramanuja’s understanding of the text, see J. A. B. van Buitenen’s Ramanuja on the Bhagavadgıta (The Hague, 1953). Van Buitenen’s own translation, The Bhagavadgıta in the Mahabharata (Chicago, 1981), is heroic scholarship, translation at its best, and his introductory essay is no less insightful. The very important exegesis of Sankara has been translated into English by Alladi Mahadeva Sastri: The Bhagavad-Gita with the Commentary of Srî Sankarachâryâ, 5th ed. (Madras, 1961). And the interesting commentary of Abhinavagupta, the Gıtarthasan˙graha, has been well translated into English and perceptively introduced by Arvind Sharma (Leiden, 1983).
For significant examples of modern Indian interpretations of the text, see The Gospel of Selfless Action, or the Gita According to Gandhi, edited and translated by Mahadev Desai (Ahmadabad, 1948); Srimad Bhagavadgıta Rahasya, edited by B. G. Tilak (Poona, 1936); and Aurobindo Ghose’s Essays on the Gita (Calcutta, 1926).
And here's a book, Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, by Robert Neil Minor, that has a chapter/essay on several different Gita interpreters. See the table of contents. [7] It's not so recent, 1986. Priyanath talk 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! -- Regent's Park ( Rose Garden) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thanks a lot, pls do so when you get time. Also I you had given some very valuable comments before regarding improving the article. Pls share them if you have any. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you could look at Fascism#Political spectrum. The introductory sentence of this section is not supported by the footnotes, and much of the section is devoted to "left-wing fascism", which is not described elsewhere in the article. There has been discussion, but it has not been resolved. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might be able to help, but many thanks for the advice. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to keep myself away from te articles I used to edit. Don't know why... loss of interest perhaps. But things may change. -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes at Bhagavad Gita. In fact I just realized my mistake, "Nikhilananda says that according to Shankaracharya and other teachers" has been written (by me) as "Nikhilananda says...". I will fix it up by looking into the book. Thanks a lot. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 06:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare: I've been trying to repair references in several articles where someone hasn't properly added the footnotes. Only the URL shows up, not the name of the reference work or its publisher. There are several needed repairs in the first part of the Dharavi article, for example, but I can't figure out how to work on the first part of the entry. The first edit section appears at "Geography." We're left with these types of references (which look unprofessional): ^ http://realtravel.com/karachi-reviews-a5241058.html ^ http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20071006.htm ^ http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060619/slum.html ^ a b c [1] My question: Is there a way to edit the very top of this entry or is that something only an administrator is permitted to do? Thanks! -- Amsterdam360 ( talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Amsterdam360, here is how the references to website, newspapers etc can be formatted.
The commonly used citation templates are {{ cite web}}, {{ cite book}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ cite news}} and you can see the whole list at Category:Citation_templates. You may also find WP:CHEAT useful.
Even more important than citation style is the quality of source being used (see WP:RS). For example in the above list, the realtravel.com website is just a generaic travel website with no known reputation for fact-checking - therefore it is not acceptable as a reliable source (even though such sources are widely used on wikipedia). Dawn is a respectable mainstream newspaper and therefore is considered a reliable source in general; however the article being cited is an opinion piece (rather than a news article) and such commentary should in general be cited only for the opinion of their authors and not for facts. Furthermore the article does not even mention Mahim and Sion, so it cannot, in any case, be used to support the sentence, " Sandwiched between Mahim in the west and Sion in the east, is Dharavi."
The Time article, on the other hand is perfectly fine as a source. Note though that it says, "Dharavi has a population of between 600,000 and a million", so the sentence in the article ("Dharavi has a population of more than 600,000 people according to the Time Magazine."), though technically correct, can be made more accurate. Also, we need a source for the first part of that sentence ("Spread over an area of 175 hectares"), since the Time article does not say that.
I realize that this may be more information than you asked for. Use whatver you find useful, and feel free to ask if you have any questions or comments. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 03:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I have been using method 5 - takes more work, but it's more professional. I don't have the right,however, to remove references (like those you've mentioned above)? I can just make the format better? Please confirm. -- Amsterdam360 ( talk) 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks, greatly, for your help! Looks like our discussion has been useful for other editors, too. And ... I'm watching this page, per your other message. Cheers Back! -- Amsterdam360 ( talk) 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I stumbled onto your talk page - as one does somehow - and found that your section above was very helpful. In fact I've taken the liberty of adding the line below onto my own page. User_talk:Abecedare#Repairing_Reference_Footnotes_for_Dharavi - great tips on making good Wiki references. So thx again. Trafford09 ( talk) 14:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Abecedare, Thank you for your message reproduced below:
Rodolfou, You are welcome to add criticism at the AOL poage, but you'll need better sources than blogs and webistes like Yunus news, Answering AOL and Guruphiliac blog. Guidestar is fine as a source, as long it is used to make factual and verifiable claims about the income and expenditure of AOL, and not to draw editorial conclusions (let the reader do that!). Please see wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:NOR for more information. Abecedare ( talk) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
1 - Regarding acceptable sources under wikipedia policy WP:RS and WP:NOR:
1.1 -
Yunus news is a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and in particular the article
[1] abides by
WP:RS.
1.2 – The ex AOL-teacher 'resignation' letter
[4] indeed falls within
WP:RS#Self-published_sources to be used “only in limited circumstances, with caution. I consider the criticism of someone who was a teacher in the organization to the organization so relevant and useful that it justifies its inclusion in the article with caution. Regarding
WP:NOR and
WP:NOR#Neutral_point_of_view and
WP:NOR#Verifiability the principles apply equally to all the AOL websites sited; in my evaluation both the AOL own-site sources and the former teacher letter do not violate
WP:NOR and should not be deleted; if they do violate
WP:NOR they should both be deleted to provide balanced treatment.
1.3- Regarding factual information versus editorial conclusions of the source you do accept I propose the following text and accept suggestions for its placement:
2. I am also welcoming your opinion on these two possible additional sources amd relevant quotes:
While critics also label him "guru to the rich and famous," Shankar defends the right of the wealthy to inner peace
also available at the authors blog.
I do believe that breathing techniques are very common. They are also very effective — otherwise they would not be so commonly endorsed by various schools of thought. Vipassna is also a breathing technique that claims its lineage to the Buddha himself. What SSRS has done is what a few dozen Indian gurus have done and will no doubt continue to do–packaging of what already exists. In the US, that simple core wrapped in a few hours of homilies sells for $250 (with a concession for students.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfou ( talk • contribs)
Someone brought this discussion to my attention. As the editor of Yunus News, I of course gladly give some comments
1. First of all: For people who are so into 'accuracy', just a quick remark. My surname is 'Slaats' and not 'Slattas'. 2. I could make a long stream of comments on the lack of solidity regarding the arguments as to what makes a source or person 'reliable', but since the once proposed by Abecedare are coming from the wikipedia WP-RS guidelines, i'll gladly agree with them within the medium of Wikipedia. So I also readily agree with Abecedare on lots of points. Although it wasn't meant to be initially, Yunus News turned out to be a one-man enterprise. So I must agree that Yunus News probably as a site does not attain the WP-RS standards, when applied strictly. Wiki-rules are wiki-rules. 4. To say that I am not an expert on the subject is quite another thing. I do feel that my CV indeed points out that I in fact am an expert on the matter and that my reactions and openness on my subsequent Answeringaol-blog amply support this. Therefore I agree with Rodolfou here and thank him for bringing up the points under his (or her) 1.1. (although strictly speaking I probably again do not meet the criteria of some wikipedia guidelines, but the criteria put forward by Abecedare do not seem to be criteria for expertise. They are criteria to determine 'academic authority', and are certainly not the same) 5. The resignation letter might also not pass the Wiki-rules, but if you would like to have it pass them, then just go to Guruphiliac, contact Jody, the editor, and ask him whether he can bring you in contact with the author of the letter.
Now, to finish - and here I actually would like to make my biggest point - even if you would not use my article as some sort of example of criticism, then please go through my answers on various AOL-claims [3]. I quote enough sources there and I use more then enough factual and logical arguments so that one or two at least should be able to be put . You don't need my article itself for proving criticism, you need the arguments and references I give in the article to show critiques on AOL. So all in all I do not see why my article itself should become the topic of a discussion. The referenced arguments (like for example the pseudo-scientific claims or the controversy around Maharishi, etc.) should be put on the Wikipedia AOL-page, not the fact that Yunus News criticizes it. Should you wonder why I do not put those things on the Wikipedia AOL-page myself, then my reply would be that I do not feel the need to start a whole Wikipedia-debate. I think I would tire soon of the 'editing-war' that goes on on that page. I've done my part on the discussion, and like I said, you find it on my blog. If anybody can use the facts I offer there, then let him or her feel free to use them appropriatly. But please, there's no need to drag me or my writings in to it. The facts and arguments I offer, are worth enough in themselves.
In any case, thanks for this nice, civil and actually interesting discussion. And thanks for inviting me to join.
Hi! You reverted my edit on the India article which used a map of India without its claimed territories. It was suggested on the People's Republic of China article that I should not use a map which shows claimed territories in its infobox. I argued that to be neutral, we should show the controlled territories in dark green and the claimed territories in light green simply to present greater information and more inclusive of the various points of view. Why is it that the infobox on the China article may not depict claimed territories but the infobox for the India article may? ( Talk:People's_Republic_of_China#Map) -- Shibo77 ( talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment added Also since I have seen what you are talking above, It is illegal to display the Map of India in any other way except the Survey of India, Map. PoK and territory ceded to China is territory lost as a result of aggression, it is not a hypothetical "claimed territory", please be careful. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
New comment added Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Can you keep an eye on User:Adil your. He's disrupting massively. An admin who doesn't know anything unblocked him recently. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Can you pls review the article Sarada Devi and share your comments? This has undergone lot of changes and I am the only major contributor. So I want others to review it. Thanks. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
response 70.112.4.25 ( talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thank you for the feedback,Appreciate your valuable comments. I see that you are using the comparison of number of books found in library. Very logical and true. but in my opinion ,spirituality is very different from other fields. For example --There are less number of Ferrari's on road ,that does not make it less notable.
Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers.
If the article is deleted ,I am afraid that new users will not be able to enter and modify the existing article.
Just wanted your suggestion on ,how to improve the article. Amarhindustani ( talk) 01:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Amarhindustani ( talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Within the article the {{Science in India}} template has science links that one needs to navigate, including the mathematics and astronomy link. The other links were laid out so that those interested in history of science in general may find other regional articles to enjoy. Vedic science is more of an invented modern concept and is, in my opinion, best left out since it compromises not only the integrity of a science article but may also affect its stability to some extent. Wishing you the best, JSR 0562
JSR 0562 06:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Its hard to see how this article will survive! Sites like http://www.astromatrimony.com/ are being used and seems like full of OR. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ( talk) 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for clarification at my talk page. If I was mistaken, I'd like to learn what to do differently next time. Thanks. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As one particular user complained that I was manipulating things in the RFC, I am withdrawing it. You may continue the RFC on your own interest but I have nothing to do wih it any more.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 03:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Since you are very active on the Gita article, probably you will have suggestions on this new article. Thanks. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
hello abecedare... your comment here was totally on the mark.. it is not the book I care about but this comment said by taylor at a press conferance which is reported in the book .. I have found the quote in another book as well ...both books have been disputed by the other editor on the page.I actually don't care about the books .. it is the comments reported from the press conference that I want to include...
Broader question: I just looked at the article talkpage, and it appears the point of contention seems to be what Charles Turner said at a press conference after an event (1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I assume). Since the comments were made at a press conference, aren't there contemporaneous media accounts about what was or wasn't said ? Why are we having to look at POV sources for this information ? Has anyone searched Lexis-Nexis ?Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
here is the detail of the reported press conference...I have written to the statesmen-journal requesting clarification about the quoted comments .. do you have any ideas as to how I can go forward to get these comments at the press conference acceptable to wiki? you mentioned lexis nexis ..what is this?
here is all the imformation I have ..
On july 23rd, 1986, the Statesman-Journal covered a press conference convened that week in Portland By Oregon attorney general, david Frohnmayer, and the US attorney, Charles Turner.
Asked by a reporter if, in convicting Sheela and Not osho, Turner had "let the big fish get away". Turner said the "government did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rajneesh". " We felt that if he left the country, the movement would be disbanded,´" Sending him to prison would have simply served to cause him to be a martyr" To a reporter from The Dalle Weekly Reminder, as reported in that paper of july 24th, 1986. Turner said; " If the Bagwan had been kept in jail, the sentence " would have had a unifying effect on his followers". By leaving he caused the destruction of the commune, which is what we were after".
any help on the way forward would be appreciated. regards. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the barnstar. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Saw that you added back the image -- I removed it previously because it is up for deletion because it's free use rationale is unclear and it is probably a copyvio. – ukexpat ( talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope you will be leaving the same message on User talk:Adam.J.W.C. since he has continued to edit war on that page. Nikkul ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
On the topic of Romila Thapar, I have seen very little constructive criticism coming in from editors who were already present. If you scroll up from the latest section on the talk page, most of my questions were left hanging there. Editors who had reverted my edits did not care to explain why, for example, Praful Bidwai is more notable/correct than Arun Shourie? Why criticisms cannot be placed on Thapar's bio? Why does the article/editors don't accept any changes to the body? And so on.
Also, in the present context of the "marxist" tag, I have not received any logical explanations as to why the references I have given are not valid. See you on the talk page. Nshuks7 ( talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:3RR does not say that you are editing and I am reverting. It says, "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." and both of us have reverted by that definition.
- But no, I have not run afoul of 3RR: see the BLP exemption to understand why. You have not contravened 3rr either, yet.
- Of course, if interested, you can get a second opinion on the above points. Abecedare ( talk) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion on your talk page: I haven't learned how to archive stuff yet. Anyway, the BLP rule says libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced material. I take it you think the material is "poorly sourced"? That brings us back to why? Can you answer this on the Talk:Romila Thapar? Nshuks7 ( talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In the waning days when Indian and Indian topic-interested wikipedians increasingly spending very little time here (understandably so), I would request and recommend you consider running for adminship. We are in need of some fair-minded and cool-headed people and you appear to be one. -- Docku: What's up? 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
<deindent>
I know I suggested moving this discussion to the noticeboards earlier, but on second thought it may be better not to. Else, there is a chance, that if and when a WPINDIA member is nominated, someone will charge that other project members were canvassed for their votes. Don't know if such argument will carry any weight, but better to avoid it in the first place.
Abecedare (
talk)
03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was Bharatveer, but it appears that isn't so. The following are Confirmed as one user:
Block as you wish. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Judging by the nonsense on Poverty in India in January 2009, I think this dispute is probably caused by animosity caused by people taking things like Monkeygate and Matthew Hayden's comment on India being a "third-world country" too seriously. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not kidding, each time a controversy breaks out, some rich middle class Indians who obviously don't see beyond their servants to the slums claim that India is more developed than Australia, and a lot of Australians claim that Indian education system is easier, which it isn't. Most Australian uni students can't spell without a machine spellchecker. YAM is for bureaucratic paperwork. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You claimed I was unfairly playing the victim. If you read something like this, and then compare and see that many of the opposes are actual members at Wikipedia Review, I think your claims fall flat. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Was there a reason for this? Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A third time to nail home the sapiential salience:
Dharmic Traditions such as Sanatana Dharma, Jaina Dharma, Buddhadharma and Sikha Dharma, for example are traditions of Dharma. Often glossed Indian religions by Western discourse, where the term 'religions' is understood as an acculturation and culturally colonizing attribution following post-colonial discourse. In addition, to categorize Buddhadharma a 'religion' is culturally insensitive and incorrect given it is at core non- Deistic and non- Theistic. There is a need for meta-analysis on core assumptions. There is, and has been, and continues to be; an agenda in the -isms and the obscuration of the relationship of the manifold traditions of Dharma
.
B9 hummingbird hovering ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Buddhism, by 1860, had come to exist, not in the Orient but in the Oriental libraries and institutes of the West, in its texts and manuscripts, at desks of the Western savants who interpreted it. It had become a textual object, defined, classified, and interpreted through its own textuality.... By the middle of the century, the Buddhism that existed "out there" was beginning to be judged by a West that alone knew what Buddhism was, is, and ought to be. [8]
Thanks and Regards to you -- Bhadani ( talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it seems the new user is making too many copyvio and test edits, but please do go easy on him. Newcomers can be slow to learn, but still ultimately useful. Shreevatsa ( talk) 00:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Most of the articles I work on are highly sensitive articles where people bring lots or sources that they usually synthesis. For instance, someone brought an article from The Economist, a reliable source overall. The article said a specific country could be considered an economic superpower, and used that source to say that country was a potential superpower. Though an economic superpower and an emerging/potential superpower are two completely different things. As a country doesn't need to be a economic superpower to be considered a potenial superpower, and vice versa. Also, I just use non-Or as SYN technically falls under WP:OR. Deavenger ( talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.21.172 ( talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I put a link to a collection of Sanskrit short stories on Sanskrit. You removed it and gave the reason only as "undue/spam". I disagree.
The link is for one of the most important collections of Modern Sanskrit on the Internet. Hence, it is not undue. On the contrary. The amount of Modern Sanskrit available on the Internet is not large, which means that a collection such as this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Including a link to such a site is comparable to the several links on New Latin which take the reader to modern Latin compositions.
I have no connection with this site nor with its authors, and I included the link on a relevant page. Hence, it's not spam.
Where would be a better place for this link? Under Further Reading, which includes sections for Introductions, Grammars, Dictionaries. Perhaps one more section should be added Readers. Would you suggest placing this link on the Sanskrit Grammar page instead? Interlingua 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternate suggestion: I see that Sanskrit already links to another page ( A Practical Sanskrit Introductory by Charles Wikner) hosted by http://sanskritdocuments.org/, which also hosts the stories by Naphade. How about linking to the the mothership Sanskitdocuments.org itself instead of its subpage(s) ? That way readers can navigate to the learning resource that is of their interest and level of knowledge. Let me know what you think. Abecedare ( talk) 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for helping me. Do you know any good, knowledgable editors who can help out on how to properly source and document government filings and certificates? I am with a winery and sometimes I want to edit our page to make corrections from anywhere from types of grapevines that we plant to our size. I'd like to be able to use an outside source as the reference, which are government census, certifications, filings, general bureaucracy that isn't online, but can be obtained. Know anyone who can lead me on how to reference those things? Thanks! Mowineguy ( talk) 12:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see another editor has joined in. Dougweller ( talk) 13:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot; But I still have a long way to go! -- Nvineeth ( talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Hornplease's version is better. How do we replace the current version by it? Just do it in one fell swoop? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Btw, would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will push me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. (I mean I haven't even copyedited it in a long time. Shameful.) And, if you don't mind, I might copy this post on the talk pages of a few other people. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Abecedare, I'm rewriting Bhakti (old version [5]) into a more encyclopedic and less sectarian article (at least that's what I hope I'm doing!). If you have any thoughts or sources, or could keep an eye on it, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Priyanath talk 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Mumbai for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt ( talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
For letting me know. Mitsube ( talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at rewriting the article based on the best references I could find. Since my family was not big on puja growing up :-) , I may have given undue weight to one thing or another. I also was perhaps overly aggressive in deleting the essayish and unreferenced bits, so I encourage you to clean up after me. Priyanath talk 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how are you? It's been long time!-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an opinion on which English Bhagavad Gita translations would meet the highest standards as a reliable source and especially for quoting stanzas in articles? There are so many, with different qualities of poetry, clarity, and accuracy, rarely all three. The one that is most commonly used on Wikipedia (Bhagavad Gita As It Is) didn't get a very high review in the one scholarly comparison I read, in a JSTOR journal article by Larson. [6] I don't currently have access to JSTOR, or I would look again. Thanks, Priyanath talk 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Gerald J. Larson has thoughtfully surveyed the stylistic and interpretive trends as exemplified by many of these translations in “The Song Celestial: Two Centuries of the Bhagavad Gıta in English,” Philosophy East and West 31 (October 1981): 513–541. Of the readily available translations, Franklin Edgerton’s (1925; reprint, Oxford, 1944) is the most literal, so literal in its attempt to preserve the Sanskrit syntax, in fact, that, for the sake of balance, it was originally published together with Sir Edwin Arnold’s transformation of the text into Victorian poesy (Cambridge, Mass., 1944). Though Edgerton’s always reliable translation is difficult to read, his lengthy commentary is masterful scholarship. The interpretive notes that accompany the translation by W. Douglas P. Hill (London, 1927) remain an important contribution to the literature. Étienne Lamotte’s Notes sur laBhagavadgıta (Paris, 1929) is a fine example of rigorous exegesis and reflection.
R. C. Zaehner’s lucid translation (Oxford, 1969) is a pleasure to read and his analyses are as judicious as they are sensitive; Zaehner introduces the insights of Sankara and Ramanuja where they are appropriate and he admits his penchant for the theistic interpretation of the latter. For a more detailed understanding of Ramanuja’s understanding of the text, see J. A. B. van Buitenen’s Ramanuja on the Bhagavadgıta (The Hague, 1953). Van Buitenen’s own translation, The Bhagavadgıta in the Mahabharata (Chicago, 1981), is heroic scholarship, translation at its best, and his introductory essay is no less insightful. The very important exegesis of Sankara has been translated into English by Alladi Mahadeva Sastri: The Bhagavad-Gita with the Commentary of Srî Sankarachâryâ, 5th ed. (Madras, 1961). And the interesting commentary of Abhinavagupta, the Gıtarthasan˙graha, has been well translated into English and perceptively introduced by Arvind Sharma (Leiden, 1983).
For significant examples of modern Indian interpretations of the text, see The Gospel of Selfless Action, or the Gita According to Gandhi, edited and translated by Mahadev Desai (Ahmadabad, 1948); Srimad Bhagavadgıta Rahasya, edited by B. G. Tilak (Poona, 1936); and Aurobindo Ghose’s Essays on the Gita (Calcutta, 1926).
And here's a book, Modern Indian Interpreters of the Bhagavadgita, by Robert Neil Minor, that has a chapter/essay on several different Gita interpreters. See the table of contents. [7] It's not so recent, 1986. Priyanath talk 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)