Talk:Maitreyi

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

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological basis[edit]

The article goes too far in implying that Maitreyi was a historical figure and the facts of her life are established. This is not so. Like Yajnavalkya, if Maitreyi existed at all, her biography was subsequently embellished and idealized for poetic and spiritual reasons. To imply that the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad records a historical moment and transcribes a real conversation is not supported by scholarship or common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.200.46 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this article and so can't comment on the accuracy of what you state, but if you have any reliable third-party sources mentioning that Maitreyi was not a historical figure please add them to the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Sanyasi[edit]

The picture of a sanyasi has no relevance to the topic at hand. It should be removed.

198.203.177.177 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a sanyasi is referred to in the text in the section where the image appears. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary[edit]

While copyediting this article, I got stuck with the 1st para of Commentary, as I found it confusing. Sureśvara's Vārtika on Yājñavalkya–Maitreyī Dialogue by Hino is a translation and explanation of the Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue part of Suresvara's larger work Bŗhadāraņyakopanişadbhāşyavārttika. The Bŗhadāraņyakopanişadbhāşyavārttika is a commentary (vartika) on Adi Shankara's vartika on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

  • In the Sureśvara's Vārtika on Yājñavalkya–Maitreyī Dialogue (a doctoral thesis by Shōun Hino), the prime doctrine of Yagnavalkya's philosophy is discussed by Suresvara a disciple of Adi Shankara:
    • How can the 8th century Suresvara discuss in the modern work Sureśvara's Vārtika on Yājñavalkya–Maitreyī Dialogue? Should the original 8th century be noted, rather than Hino's translation.
  • The "According to Adi Shankara ... " seems to be from Adi Shankara's vartika on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (BU)
  • this chapter 2.4/ chapter 4.5 - is it referring to BU or Adi Shankara's vartika? Probably the latter chapter 4.5 is BU, guessing from the quote. Please check
  • Shankara states that "the truth of the Brahman is ascertained on the authority of the Sruti verse. .. The Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue is noted in Sureśvara's Vārtika, states Hino, as re-asserting the Hindu tradition in the Sruti, -> Is Sruti part Shankara's view (translated by Hino) OR Hino's original view? Please check in the reference.

Also, "Suresvaracharya Vartika 68-69", there is no text called Suresvaracharya Vartika. The verse number may be part of Hino's translation number scheme or Bŗhadāraņyakopanişadbhāşyavārttika.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: Indeed that section was confusing. I reworded it a bit after rechecking the source. You and @Nvvchar should feel free to revise and improve it further. Both the verse 36 in Sanskrit of original Vartika, and Hino translation, are indeed referring to Sruti, and it is the Vartika's view. Yes, Vartika is a secondary commentary on another secondary work (bhasya), as are Tika and other genre of ancient/medieval Indic texts. But, their Vartika and Tika and such texts typically followed certain ancient scholarly traditions – they included ukta, anukta and durukta; which are respectively "a review of what was said in the text by the previous author", "a review of what was not said in the text by the previous author", and "an analysis of what was improperly said in the text by the previous author". Thus, a Vartika may present fresh ideas or perspectives, and it is important to attribute properly and clarify in the Maitreyi article who is saying what in the Vartika. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Maitreyi/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review this article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:44, 17 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) 19:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GA1 issues were previously addressed and the article has been looked over for improvements by Guild of Copy Editors, and then renominated. There was little I could see for additional improvements.

Bibliography

Since the books by Maguire and Murcott and Sachau are not used for inline references, should they be moved to the "Further reading" section?

@Ms Sarah Welch:@Nvvchar:@BlueMoonset: - done for now on this one.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from others[edit]

I'm going to go through all the sections, this time starting with the lead section and Early life; I will follow up with the others as I have time to finish and post them. Because this had a previous GA review, I may be referencing issues raised in the course of it.

Lead section[edit]

  • "Brihadaranyaka Upanishad" is wiklinked twice, and only put in italics once. All texts should probably be in italics. There may be some that should be in quotes rather than italics—sections or very short works, perhaps—so query if you aren't sure. This needs to be done throughout the article, not just here.
    • Done -NVV
  • Yajnavalka is spelled this way here, but "Yagnavalka" in places in the article's body. Please go with the former spelling.
    • Spelled Yajnavalkya throughout the article -NVV
      • There are still seven instances of the "Yagnavalka" spelling. Please fix them all. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Fixed all 7. - MSW
  • in paragraph 1, sentence 2, the date range would be better displaced to the end of the sentence (Yajnavalkya is more important than his dates): "one of two wives of the Vedic sage Yajnavalkya; he lived from 8th- to 7th-century BCE."
    • Right. Done -NVV
      • You may have displaced it, but you didn't revise the text as I suggested. Please complete the fix, and make it also to the like phrase in Early life. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atman is also spelled "Ātman" in the article body. Please pick one version and use it throughout.
    • Spelled "Atman" throughout.
      • Unfortunately not quite. Also, I wonder whether "Atman" needs to be used quite as often as it is, or its translation. It seems like practically every time "soul" is used, Atman has to be specifically noted (and vice versa), and I'm wondering why. Alternatively, once you define Atman, it should be usable without translation unless its meaning varies depending on the context. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I has noticed the same issue, before the reminder, and removed almost all of them. I left the first instance for definition, and a second instance much later for it gave poetic balance to that sentence, with "Brahman (ultimate reality)" that follows. In a few cases, where the source uses "self" or "soul" for Atman, I let it be used interchangeably, just like WP:RS rarely do. - MSW
  • The ten hymns starting the second paragraph are only mentioned there and in the manuscript caption next to it; these need to be written about in the body of the article, and you need a source for this material.
    • Mentioned in the body of the article.
  • I think "Approximately" might be better than "About"; even "Around" would be (since it's more commonly used with quantity). Without a source, I can't fully judge what might be best.
  • Fixed. - MSW
  • There are nine separate inline citations in the lead; these should all be mentioned and cited in the body of the article (with the possible exception of the "friendly one" cite).
    • Except the first ref all others in the lead shifted to the body of the article with additiona tetx as necessary. - NVV
  • final sentence in second paragraph: I think adding "to be" before "the quintessence" is appropriate: does anyone actually use "quintessence"? If so, consider quoting it; if not, then it may run afoul of MOS:WTW, one of the GA criteria.
    • Chnage to "crux". - NVV
  • "has spawned analysis": how much of it? I get no sense as to whether there are a few including Sureshvara, an extensive literature of analyses, or some gradation in between.
    • Corrected -NVV
  • third paragraph: "a number of educational institutions are named in her honour": the body of the article only lists one; without more there, you'll need a citation here
    • Changed to one institution on New Delhi - NVV
  • New request: "Rigveda" was in italics in both this section and the caption; now it is just in italics (twice) in the caption. Why do you believe it should not be in italics? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Fixed. - MSW

Early life[edit]

  • Is there a reason why "Asvalayana Gṛhyasūtra" is not italicized? From what I can tell, it almost certainly should be.
    • It was missed. Done now. -NVV
  • Second paragraph, last sentence: rather than "In the epic", I'd suggest "In the latter"—that way, it's clear instantly to the reader that you're referring to the Mahabharata without having to click on the links to find out which is the epic. (The GA1 review mentioned specialist terms, which I think also extends to specialist knowledge, such as what is an epic and what isn't: these articles need to be accessible to people who don't know about India and its historical and spiritual writings and people.)
    • Changed.-NVV
  • as mentioned in the Lead section, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad should be in italics throughout, and Yagnavalkya should be changed to Yajnavalkya everywhere.
    • Done -NVV
      • I've fixed two instances of the former, which was not done in this section. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. More to come later in the week. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nvvchar: The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is linked to the White Yajurveda, not the Rigveda. I clarified the 10 hymns part, and added a source. I also made some additional changes. @BlueMoonset: Go ahead the next round of comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • New comment: the second paragraph is self-contradictory: it says that Matreiyi was married according to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, but never marries according to the Mahabharata (is there a reason this isn't in italics). However, in the very next sentence, it goes on to say that in the latter (Mahabharata), "though it is said that she was one of two wives of Vedic sage Yajnavalkya of the 8th–7th-century BCE". Those are self-contradictory things from the same source, and this contributes to a general level of confusion in this paragraph that needs to be straightened out. Also, the quote beginning with "discoursing" is missing its closing quotemark. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a cut and paste move from lead into main by @Nvvchar, here, probably to remove the cites from the lead. I have reworded it. @Nvvchar: please check if the revisions are okay. - MSW

Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue[edit]

  • paragraph 2, sentence 1: please displace the parenthetical 700 BCE dating to the end of the sentence; I think it would be better removed from the parenthesis there.
  • Done. - MSW
  • in the paragraph immediately after the first block quote, "Atman" is wikilinked for a second time in this section. Please go through the article and eliminate duplicate links: general rule allows once in the lead and once in the body, but no more than that.
  • Fixed, along with a few others. - MSW
  • next paragraph: since you've already established in the third sentence that Sureshvara dates from c. 750 CE, you don't also need to describe him as "eighth-century" in the following sentence.
  • Indeed. Corrected. - MSW
Nature of love[edit]
  • the quote doesn't quite work as a parallel: I think it would if the end of the first sentence paralleled the end of the second: "a husband is dear" (adding "is") to match "a wife is dear". You can try another change if it better fits the original text, but I suspect this will be best. Also, you have that accented "Atman" here, which doesn't match the other iterations of the word.
  • Indeed. Corrected. - MSW
  • this is another section where parenthetical explanations of Atman, soul, and self, feel repetitive. See whether some can be eliminated.
  • Eliminated it, and a few more. - MSW
  • "Concluding his dialogue" sentence: why is "inner-self" hyphenated?
  • Fixed. - MSW
  • "In Weyer's interpretation": is this of the just-completed quote, or covering more of the text than that? I think this needs to be clarified; in addition, probably "the soul" rather than "soul"
  • Removed. Unnecessary and out of place it felt. @Nvvchar: please add it back if you want. - MSW
  • "After Yagnavalkya renounces his previous life, Maitreyi also becomes a sanyassini". Well, since Yajnavalkya becomes a "sannyasi" (male), it isn't "also" with Maitreyi unless you recast the sentence. You also need to be consistent in your use of roman and italics: the stages of Yajnavalkya's life are in roman (and should probably be italic) while with Maitreyi it's italic. Also, if you do use the word for Maitreyi, please spell it in the same manner: if a double-n "sannyasi", then make it a double-n "sannyasini" (use the spellings in the sannyasa article).
  • Fixed. - MSW

Legacy[edit]

  • before "mentioned", I'd insert something like, "who is also", since we've been discussing her in the context of Upanishads and epics.
  • Done. - MSW
  • for the final sentence, I'd recommend revising "She has a college in New Delhi named after her, and the Matreyi Vedic Village is a retreat location in Tamil Nadu." with "A college in New Delhi is named after her, as is the Matreyi Vedic Village, a retreat location in Tamil Nadu."
  • Agreed, that is better. Done. - MSW

That's the end of a first pass at a review of the article, with additional comments on the first two sections and initial ones on the rest. I expect there to be a second pass once the edits on this round are complete. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ms Sarah Welch, thanks. I should point out that there were a couple of issues and a new request in the Lead section that have not yet been taken care of. All of them are individually signed and dated 1 April. Let me know when they're ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: I did not even read those, sorry. Thank you for the reminder. I will take a look. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: I took care of those, I think, and a bit more. As I combed through the article, encouraged by your comments, I added a source for 8th-century BCE date. Removed the unsourced 1100-500 BCE range. Let us just stick with the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms Sarah Welch, thank you. The article is getting better and better, and is very close to being a GA in my opinion. I've just made a few more copyedits, which I hope have not been contrary to facts.
There is one thing that puzzles me, in the section about the Matreiyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue. Near the end of the main section, before "Nature of love" begins, there's a quote presumably said by Yajnavalkya within a blockquote from Sureshvara, but the quote is really all that's there. I initially thought this was quote by Yajnavalkya from the Brihadararanyaka Upanishad that's in a section of Sureshvara's work (thus a quote from one work in the later work), but it appears instead to be a recasting of the original in Sureshvara's own words, unless it is something else entirely. If a recasting, then it might help to clarify this, pointing out what it is (and use your own words, because I'm sure you understand it far better than I do): an elaboration on the original, retaining the dialogue form, so that Yajnavalkya and Matreiyi are "speaking" here, too. Sureshvara seems to complete commenting on 2.4.3 in verse 63, and is working on 2.4.4 before, during, and after the quoted verses 68 and 69. Perhaps, rather than "Sureshvara wrote," before the quoting of those verses, you could instead point out that this is an elaboration on what Yajnavalkya said in the previous quoted section, and thus remove "Yajnavalkya:" from within the quote, since it isn't actually in the book. (You may or may not wish to mention that this is Hino's translation of the Brihadaranyakopanishadbhashyavarttika.)
This does bring up a minor issue: the Hino source is listed under both the Bibliography and Further references sections. Per WP:LAYOUT, one of the MOS sections that GAs must adhere to, Further references should not include references that have also been cited in the article text. So please remove Hino from the Further references section, which would depopulate that section and lead to its removal as well. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Your copyedits were fine and helpful. Indeed, Sureshvara-related summary was a confusing chunk of the text. I reread the sources, then wrote it, added Pechelis source for NPOV, embedded the quote, clarified what is Hino's translation as you suggested, and made other revisions. So you may want to re-review the last three paragraphs of the sub-section before "Nature of love" subsection. I also removed the duplinks to address the WP:LAYOUT issue. Thanks again for all the helpful comments. @Nvvchar: Since you had written parts of this section, some of which I have replaced, please check/revise, and then let @°BlueMoonset if you are okay with the rewritten parts of the section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch, it looks quite good. Thanks for the careful work, and to Nvvchar for reviewing the changes. I've just made some minor edits to the text and the large note, which I hope do not do any violence to the facts. I found the new material on Adi Shankara in the third paragraph of interest. It's a tad odd discussing his disciple Sureshvara in the second paragraph, and then Shankara in the third paragraph, but it may not make sense to reverse them given the flow of the underlying ideas. I'll want to read through the whole again, but I think we're just about done. Thank you for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Your edits are fine and an improvement indeed, and consistent with the sources. I just changed one spelling. Thanks @Nvvchar for reviewing the changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

Shame on me, that I hadn't looked at this section before. There are a few unusual things I noticed that should be adjusted:

  • Several of the cited books have full dates of publication, down to the actual day. This is very unusual for books: typically, only the year is given. How have you sourced these full dates?
  • @Nvvchar: you answer, the how. For now, I changed date to year. - MSW
  • The Hino edition that is linked is the second edition (first edition is dated 1982; second edition 1991), and since Hino refers to it being a "newly revised print", if this was the source used, the entry for it needs to specify that this is the second edition, and probably just give the year (though in the date field rather than the year field per the cite book documentation).
  • Done. - MSW
  • The Doninger is a 2010 paperback reprint of the 2009 hardcover; as the copyright year is unchanged, the text should be as well. The pagination could have changed, however, so be sure to reference the 2010 paperback while noting this is a 2009 book. Also, give the full correct name of the publisher, Oxford University Press, not "OUP Oxford".
  • Done. Add 2009/2010 pbk into title. Change it if there is a better way. - MSW
  • Alberuni's India is a modern facsimile reprint of an 1888 book in two volumes, which was reprinted in both 1993 and 2004. The fact that this is volume 2 is crucial and must be added, since each volume has its own pagination starting with page 1. The original publication year of 1888 has to be included, as well as the reprint year of the edition you're referencing.
  • Not used in this article. Removed. - MSW
  • I haven't checked all of the bibliography entries for discrepancies such as the ones above; please make your own check accordingly.

If dates (years) change per the above, be sure to change the references accordingly. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I have wondered about the same "down to the actual day" cite, common whenever @Nvvchar adds sources. He probably uses google books url cite tool for wikipedia. @Nvvchar: I will try a few. Please check each and fix any I missed. Perhaps, fix this for all articles you have nominated for GA. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ms Sarah Welch For books I have been using this tool [1]. Thanks for making the corrections. I will do corrections in other articles as well. BlueMoonset, you are a perfectionist. I have learned a lot from your reviews. Thanks Nvvchar. 01:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

So far as I can see, the article now meets the GA criteria, the second of these to reach this level. Since this is also officially Doug Coldwell's review, it is up to him to decide whether to grant it GA status. Ms Sarah Welch, Nvvchar, again my congratulations on your excellent work in getting the article to this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maitreyi&oldid=1193695004"