Talk:Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

WP:SYN removed from Dating section
I am largely ignorant of scholarly debates regarding the dating of the Yoga Sutras. However, I edited the Dating section to remove the remarks about how Bryant and Desmarais don't address Maas's arguments. I realize that WP:SYN is not a rigid rule and that the editorializing that I removed probably provided valuable context for Bryant's and Desmarais's claims, especially in a field as specialized as this. Nonetheless, inserting an unsourced claim about what arguments a scholar does nor does not engage with is so blatant a WP:SYN violation that I just don't think it can stand. Or else it's just a blatant WP:OR violation, depending on how you look at it. Our job is to report what reliable sources say, not discuss our own conclusions about which sources engage sufficiently with other sources (in articles, that is—such discussions are, of course, necessary on talk pages, when deciding whether to cite a given source at all). Find a reliable source that notes Bryant's and Desmarais's shortcomings. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

1st section, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentance
Please define (and make blue) "Vedanta"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4C80:5290:B536:2447:43D2:DD12 (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo -- Author and dating
The text says: "that is firmly debatable to the second century BC" I think it should say "datable" (not debate)

Also, 'author and dating' sounds like the author of the article wants to share his profile and new status. Funny. This problem can be solved by fixing the grammar: "authorship".

Seriously?
I just fixed a lot of mistakes from the opening of the page. Could you just not revert it?Dimasgomez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the energy or patience to fix it, magically as you wave the "revert" wand. I put twenty years of research (let alone my professors) in that few paragraphs. Most of it is almost impossible to explain because you need sanskrit to even understand it. And I put Monier-Williams roots, etc. The first word of that old version is wrong. Yogasutras is not a collection. Have you ever read it? I have. For twenty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimasgomez (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Great. Now spend some time on learning how to write at Wikipedia: the WP:LEAD summarizes the lead; your addition doesn't. It's writing-style is hard to follow, with grammatical errors ("have being composed"), and the dating is too early. And the main source is in Spanish; you're the author?
 * Let's analyze your additions diff:


 * You replaced
 * with
 * with


 * Removing the definition is a no-go;
 * The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali is arguably the most fundamental treatise on Yoga. - nope; see the lead and the article;
 * Its main merit... - unverifiable source from a non-notable author;
 * Authorship - this belongs in the body of the article, at best;
 * It describes... - unclear;
 * Each sūtra is "sewn" to the next... - again, not in the lead.


 * You replaced
 * with
 * with


 * 150 BCE to 200 CE - "early centuries CE" is more accurate;
 * its content clearly indicates... - unsourced WP:OR.


 * You changed
 * into
 * non-sequential ... organizes yoga from the most external to the most internal practices - contradiction.
 * non-sequential ... organizes yoga from the most external to the most internal practices - contradiction.
 * non-sequential ... organizes yoga from the most external to the most internal practices - contradiction.


 * You changed
 * into
 * you rerersed the relation between Patanjali's Yoga Sutas and Buddhism; unwarranted pov-pushing;
 * Taoism and Shinto - unsourced, unrelated, WP:OR;
 * internalized - unsourced WP:OR.
 * Taoism and Shinto - unsourced, unrelated, WP:OR;
 * internalized - unsourced WP:OR.


 * You added
 * unsourced WP:OR.
 * unsourced WP:OR.


 * You changed
 * into
 * into


 * Again, a reversal of the facts.


 * Your additions are a long list of problematic, unsourced and incorrect WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant & Buddhism
you added a direct quote from Edwin Bryant to the lead, disregarding the treatment of this topic in the section on tge influnce of the YS. Apart from being a copy-vio, it's also a violation of WP:LEAD: the lead summarizes the article; we don't use it to give WP:UNDUE to one particular point of view. We also don't WP:CENSOR the article, which you did when you "corrected" the info on the close relation with Buddhism by removing it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  15:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Question
"All such arguments [for a late date] are problematic"

How exactly? I would be happy to read at least a short list of the alleged incongruences, which I'm sure are cogent in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.50.116 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a quote from the cited book. Reading the book might help clarify your question(s)? Asteramellus (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't see the logic in your reply. This is a Wikipedia article, it has to be consistent and (sufficiently) clear in itself. Moreover I'm sure Bryant has his point but since someone bothered to quote some lines from his work, it's a bit odd that he/she failed to state on wht ground those datings may be problematic - even in a few words, of course. 151.32.50.116 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry for not being clear. I meant to say it's a quote from the source in response to your question "How exactly" and not some editor's point. Whole paragraph talks about alternate dating mentioned by Bryant to what is mentioned in the paragraph before.
 * Edwin Brayant, on the other hand, surveyed the major commentators ...Bryant concluded that "... All such arguments [for a late date] are problematic."
 * But, I agree more clarity would help why Bryant thinks it is problematic and maybe it's in his book and it could be added here. Asteramellus (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)