Talk:Bhagavata Purana

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Baby Krishna 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Vidura and Dhritarashtra.jpg
• Vyasa.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rudra requesting Brahma to calm down.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sridhara Swami is not an Advaitist

In the commentary section, Sridhara Swami is claimed to be an Advaitist. However, this wrong. Sridhar Swami is the opposite and is highly revered by the opponents of Advaita Vada and is respected as a Vaisnava. The great Caitanya Mahaprabhu greatly respected Sridhara Svami, and Caitanya was known for His highly inimical attitude towards the Advaitists for being crypto-Buddhist atheists. van Lustig (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Shri vs. Shree

@Dāsānudāsa regarding your recent revert: Wikipedia uses official standards for transliterating words from other scripts. As it applies to Indian articles, MOS:INDIA § Non-English strings is the relevant policy, and it clearly states that all non-Sanskrit terms should use ISO 15919 (and Sanskrit ones should use IAST). Alternatively, in common names, the Hunterian transliteration can be used as well (as is conventional). In the former (in both ISO 15919 and IAST), श्री is Śrī, while in the latter, it is Shri. "Shree" is incorrect, as it would represent श्रे, which is not a word (and even if it was, not the one intended here). So the line where I made the edit using those transliterations interchangeably is incorrect. Getsnoopy (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

But "Shree" is used in English, regardless of how incorrect it is according to the major transliteration systems. I would agree with you if the passage in question only used "Shree"/"Shreemad", but there's no harm in listing it as an alternative transliteration.

If you're not familiar with Sanskrit/Hindi and you come across a book called Shreemad Bhagwat, how are you to know it's the same book as the Srimad Bhagavatam? There are hundreds of pages beginning with "Shree" or similar 'incorrect' transliterations, not to mention a ton of books (i.e. Shree Hanuman Chalisa, Shree Vishnu Sahasranaama, and books about Shree Swaminarayan and Lord Shree Krishna), because it is a form that's in use. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So the cases where the whole titles of works themselves are in use, it would be fine to use it in article titles or body text due to WP:COMMONNAME. But what's not OK is to list it as a valid variant where the title is broken down into its component parts and the meanings of each of the words are being explained. Getsnoopy (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be interested in some other points of view on this, because I just don't see a problem in listing "Shree" as a variant spelling. As I said, it's used in English, whether or not it's technically 'correct'. Maybe it should include some note that it's nonstandard, but I don't any reason why it needs to go completely, given that there's already a more prominent IAST transliteration in line with the MOS. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it tacitly condones that as a valid transliteration, when it isn't (which is an WP:UNDUE problem). That's the same concept behind preserving quotes as-is (with "[sic]" if there's a mistake in it, or using the spelling that the source used despite the publication/piece using a different spelling standard, etc.) to stay true to what was said, for example, but the explanations of that quote, etc. are fixed/"translated". This is no different. Wikipedia saying "Shri or Shree" makes it seem like it's "anything goes" when it definitely isn't the case.

I'd be interested in some other points of view on this Feel free to solicit more opinions, but until then, I'm going to remove that transliteration from there as it clearly violates MOS:INDIA and WP:UNDUE. Getsnoopy (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)