Talk:Bhikshuka Upanishad

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review this article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened - as I may have missed some issues as a new reviewer, and want to be sure all the criteria are covered, so have reopen for further reviewing.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contents

Would it make sense to somehow incorporate the single sentence after the first paragraph into this first paragraph? OR maybe it should be structured that way, as I see it is the lead for the mendicant monks.

Paramahamsa monks

Seems to be a lot of white space after For example.

@Ms Sarah Welch:@Nvvchar:@BlueMoonset: - done for now on this one.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from others[edit]

As with the Jabala Upanishad review, I'm going to go through all the sections, this time starting with the lead section; I will follow up with the others as I have time to finish and post them.

  • Thanks for the review comments. My response is marked with -MSW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

To be a GA you have to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD: one major aspect is that topics covered in the lead need to be covered in the body of the article. Yet almost none of the material in the opening paragraph appears in the body of the text: that it's a minor Upanishad, that it's written in Sanskrit, etc. Indeed, there is typically no need for inline citations in the lead section unless quotes or controversial information appears here, because the information should also appear in the body and be cited there, yet this has six separate citations (one of which appears twice).

  • Citations in the lead have been shifted to the main article with appropriate additions of texts -NVV

There are also prose issues:

  • In the Jabala Upanishad, the word is "Sannyasa"; here, the word is rendered "Samnyasa" but still links to "Sannyasa". I think consistency across articles is a good idea unless there's a very strong reason to avoid it.
    • Sannyasa and Samnyasa are used as synonym. - NVV
      • They seem to be used as alternate spellings, not as synonyms. If they mean similar but not identical things, then why do they link to the same article? You haven't given a very strong reason to avoid it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is desirable. Fixed. - MSW
  • "This text finds mention in South Indian Telugu language version of Hindu Upanishad anthologies" is unclear and needs work as prose as well. Is the Upanishad actually included in those anthologies, or just mentioned (and in what context)? I would avoid "finds mention", which is an unusual phrasing—be more direct.
    • It is included in the South Indian Telugu anthologies. "Finds mention" changed
      • But you've changed it to "is listed", which is again indirect: it could be that the title of the Upanishad is listed but the full contents are not included. Please be more careful: this is a GA review, so prose and meaning are very important. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, please check on "sannyasins": this is a different form of the word than I've seen before, and its orthography is different as well: instead of capitalized regular type, it's lowercase italics. Again, see Jabala, and try for consistency.
  • I'm wondering why, if "Bhikshukopanishad" is an alternate title to "Bhikshuka Upanishad", it is not also in italics.
    • It is an alternate spelling. Italicicised now. -NVV
  • After the corrections, the first paragraph now ends in a comma, in the middle of an incomplete sentence. That's not good. Also, as noted in one of the other reviews, you should wikilink "recension". In addition, "serial order" isn't something that was mentioned in the other Upanishad article I worked on, and I'm not sure why the phrase is being used. Are the Upanishads actually numbered in the Muktika? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to this when I can, but there are two other reviews I haven't yet posted anything to, and Jabala still to complete. It will probably take a few days; I am not a fast reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BlueMoonset:, @Nvvchar: The lead had too many systematic issues. I have reworded it. - MSW

Etymology[edit]

  • It's best if "refers to" is together, and placed after "Indian tradition".
  • Fixed. - MSW

Chronology (-> History)[edit]

After the recent revision, this section only actually deals with when the Upanishad was created ("chronology") in the last half; its first half talks about other basic facts instead. The section is far from meeting the "clear and concise" GA prose requirement, and needs a major copyedit: in the third sentence, "its authorship ... is believed to have been composed" (authorship is not composed), and "between the 14th and 15th centuries" (there's nothing between them); in the fourth, the repetition of "same [in] substance" is problematic, as is the general tenor of the sentence: it is not clear to me whether the Bhikshuka Upanishad is basically a copy of the fourth chapter of the Ashrama Upanishad, or if they cover approximately the same facts with rather different wording.

  • Section revised and retitled to History to reflect the contents. - MSW

Contents[edit]

I did a copyedit of all but the first paragraph, which I think you need to straighten out on your own. Some issues that I couldn't solve in the text I did edit:

  • I don't know why "Yoga" is capitalized; it certainly isn't in the "Yoga" article. I think lowercase is probably the best choice throughout the article.
  • Lowercased. - MSW
  • Please pick between "Chandrayana" and "Chānḍrāyaṇa"
  • Chandrayana. Done. - MSW
  • I ended up standardizing on having the four monk types in italics; if it should be all roman, then do that, but don't do a mixture
  • Fixed. - MSW
  • based on the description, the Hamsa monks do average eight mouthfuls a day over time, but never the same from day to day. If there's something more to it than what was written here, then you may need to change my revisions. (Do the urine and dung count in the mouthful total? It might be useful to clarify that.)
  • The sources do not clarify either way. Leaving this unanswered, to avoid WP:OR. - MSW
  • please check throughout for overlinking; I removed some duplicates in the course of my copyedit here, but I'm sure there are more examples
  • Done. - MSW
  • for Hamsa monks, is the injunction to stay only five nights in a town or no more than five nights in a town (and the same with the seven nights for a religious center)? It affects the wording if it could be fewer nights than the number given.
  • Indeed. Clarified that this is not an injunction but a choice, and the right wording per sources is "no more". - MSW
  • for Paramhamsa monks, "aloofness" was an unusual descriptor; I've tried another word, which I hope is more appropriate
  • It is. - MSW
  • in the final paragraph, I wasn't quite sure how to describe where they would be in/on/near a waterfall, so I took a guess; please check. I cannot make sense of the "just a square block"; please fix that.
  • Olivelle states "by waterfall". Clarified. - MSW

Reception[edit]

  • please identify Obeyesekere so we know why his thoughts matter
  • Done. - MSW
  • why is this section called "Reception"? This seems to be an analysis by (basically) one person, rather than how the text has been received (followed) over the centuries
  • Changed it to Influence. If another section title would be better, please change. - MSW
  • "beliefs ... is" should be "beliefs ... are"
  • Fixed. - MSW
  • are these tracing to earlier works or to later ones? It's important to clarify this, especially as you're talking about "much later composed" (which should be displaced to after the Upanishads mention) that could be much later than the Vedic works but still earlier than Bhikshuka.
  • Fixed. - MSW
  • I don't quite follow the chain of causation in this section, especially the final sentence, which is oddly phrased: each monk becomes "an end in himself"? How does that accord with the goal of attaining moksha, or advancing far on the path to attain Brahman?
  • Reworded. - MSW

That's the initial pass through the article. There's a lot of work to be done here in terms of rewording; I'm sure there will be another round of requests. Please take especial care in the revisions that the resulting text is clear and concise, and does not introduce new issues while fixing old ones. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BlueMoonset: Thanks again. I have revised the lead and various sections. Go ahead with the next round of comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass[edit]

Ms Sarah Welch, I've just done a second pass, and in most places I've edited the article directly, including the Contents section and its two subsections, where I felt that repeating that each monk type seeks liberation only through yoga practice did not adhere to the "concise" part of the "clear and concise" GA criterion, so it's now only mentioned once, in the main section.

The first paragraph under History is still problematic, as I do not understand what "same in substance" means as written. The Deussen source mentions "chief points"; it appears that while both cover the same ground—I believe the four types of monks are the same in both?—they don't necessarily do it in the same way and with the same words.

The Kutichaka monk description is down to a list of names and the eight mouthfuls. Is there nothing more that distinguishes them? The Ashrama Upanishad would appear to describe them as still living with a family member or with family, in their hut (a "hut" monk, if you will), on page 765 of Deussen, but that description may not be in Bhikshuka. If there's anything more you can add to describe this type of monk, as a way of differentiating from the others, I think it's important to include.

I still need to find the time to check more of the sources—at least, those that are available to me—but in the meantime you can work on the two issues that I've mentioned above, and also check to make sure that my edits did not do violence to the facts. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I checked the Sanskrit manuscripts and the Olivelle's Bhikshuka translation on page 236. For Kuticakas, we can only list the four names, eight mouthfuls and yogic path to moksha. Anything else may be WP:OR-synthesis. You are right about 'four types of monks' are same in Bhikshuka and Ashrama's 4th chapter. The difference is minor, in some wording, spelling too (one spells it Kutichaka, the other Kutichara), but the chief points are indeed the same. There is no mention of "living with family or a family member" in Bhikshuka. Not in Ashrama either. Ashrama does say, "Kuticharas" visit and beg for 8 mouthfuls of food per day from their own family. "Kuticharas" is a Sanskrit word that means "cottage or hut visitors", contextually meaning here to be someone who goes from one cottage to another to beg. Your edits are fine, thanks. I will meditate on the 1st para of History and the sources a bit, then reword it, by tomorrow. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Sarah Welch, it looks like I misread the Duessen about Kuticaras; page 765 (on Ashrama) says "The Kuticaras (hut-visitors) are they who, carrying on begging in the houses of their children," which doesn't actually say they live with their family, just that the various family does (presumably) feed them. If the Bhikshuka doesn't specify the family connection, then it would be synthesis indeed to mention it because Ashrama does, though if this is a point of difference between the two Upanishads it might (or might not) be worth mentioning somewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I reworded the 1st para of history section, and added a note of difference between the two texts. I picked the 'yogic path' detail because it is a significant difference that is present for all four monk types in the Bhikshuka, but missing in the Ashrama. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

So far as I can see, the article now meets the GA criteria. Since this is officially Doug Coldwell's review, it is up to him to decide whether to grant it GA status. Ms Sarah Welch, Nvvchar, my congratulations on some excellent work in getting the article to this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bhikshuka_Upanishad&oldid=1206283656"