Talk:Pushtimarga Sampradaya

Okay, this article is a mess

Could we seriously have a complete rewrite here? In my mind, an article should only even be good enough to attempt a good article review on if a reader who knows nothing about its subject can go in, read it, and come out with a bit more of an understanding. Right now, I just removed a whole bunch of spam that has been on this article for months. We need better references, a better format, etc. ViperSnake151 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

this article is not a mess, i think the content is better than before, and the description is short but good. the references are not much given, that is due to the lack of english books as standard or authority. it would be better to give references to the books/granths written by acharyas rather than websites. the article needs a list of original/authentic writings of acharyas available in ebook format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangalpushti (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: One more messed up article. :( -Nizil (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, tagged for 10+ years, much of it worthy of WP:TNT. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: In one reference, literal translation is 'Path of Grace'. Is it better? Nizil (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It is Sanskrit, derived from Pusha (पुष), which connotes "nourishing, flourishing, cherishing". See (p. 587, col. 3), also see puSa. We need to mention the significance of grace to Pushtimargis, which I will do in the next few edits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That is good explanation. There is also a Gujarati term Poshan which means nourish probably derived from Pusha. Your article improvements are awesome.-Nizil (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Romanization using IAST

I was looking into the transliteration of Indic words in the article and noticed that it was being done using ISO 15919. Would it make more sense to use IAST for the transliteration? For example, ṛ instead of r̥. Is there a Wikipedia policy that dictates which standard to use? @Chariotrider555 I know I had naively made a change before, but I wanted to get some advice before I make a mistake like that again. Neo Carrot (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Neo Carrot, ISO 15919 for this page would be better because there are some words being transliterated from Gujarati, which have signs/sounds that are not in Sanskrit or mean something different in IAST. For example Gujarati "ળ" as in "ધોળ" is ḷ in ISO 15919, but is not represented in in IAST. In IAST on the other hand, the character ḷ represents the character ઌ in Gujarati. There is no Wikipedia wide policy on which to use, but to me ISO 15919 is preferable, but for articles that deal solely with Sanskrit terms IAST would be fine. (P.S. this page deals solely with Indo-Aryan terms so e/o is always treated as long). Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes more sense. Didn't think of that difference. But you're right. I agree. I also expanded on the Brahmasambandh edit I had made with an academic source as opposed to the sectarian one I had before. How can I determine (for future reference) what source is reliable and what is not? Neo Carrot (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Neo Carrot, Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a good starting point for learning about reliable sources.Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555 I saw you reverted my edit citing that Gitapress is not a reliable source. Can I ask what policy backs that assertion? I looked through WP:RS and I don't see how it couldn't be classified as reliable. Neo Carrot (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gita Press's books are of popular nature, not for academic purposes, so I initially disagreed for its inclusion. But since I now see the article was written by Baladeva Upādhyāya rather than Poddar I believe that it can be included due to his credentials. Chariotrider555 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, because from what I've seen so far, the articles written are by scholars. Hence I assumed it would be a good source to use. Neo Carrot (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)