Template:Did you know nominations/Annapurna Upanishad


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Annapurna Upanishad

 * ... that the Annapurna Upanishad states a Yogi (pictured) with self-knowledge beholds all living beings as his own self, fears no one, and treats people's possessions as meaningless?


 * ALT1:... that the Hindu text Annapurna Upanishad suggests that a Yogi (pictured) should meditate on, "who am I? how did the world come about? what is it?"
 * Reviewed: Julia Solly

Created by Ms Sarah Welch (talk) and Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Ms Sarah Welch (talk) at 18:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg These things seem in order: The article was created and submitted for DYK review on 2 March, so the nomination time meets the requirement. The article is "7582 characters (1269 words)", so for a new article, that passes. Earwig's copyright violation detection tool finds no problems. It looks good in small format. The image is appropriately licensed but arbitrary - it has no close relationship to the subject of this article, except that the picture represents Hindu spirituality in general. This picture could be used if none of the other DYK candidates had a more closely related image to use for that set. The hook is interesting, relevant, neutral, and the right length. QPQ is fine.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The information in the hook is attributed to this book
 * If I understand correctly, this book is an English translation of the text of the subject of the article. If that is the case, then this book is the source text for the subject of the article, and therefore a self-referential source. It would be better to cite a critique of the source text rather than the source text itself. I am unsure what is happening here. It could be that this text is a translation plus commentary by a scholar, and if this summary is coming from a scholar's critique and not the author of the Wikipedia article, then it is an appropriate source. For me to evaluate this I need more information from the submitter. Who is presenting the text "who am I? how did the world come about? what is it?" as a summary of the book? Is there a scholarly critique which summarizes the book this way? Besides the hook, what about the information in the contents section? Is the contents section mostly the summary of what scholars have said about the book, or is this a direct Wikipedian-written summary of the book itself?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, this book is an English translation of the text of the subject of the article. If that is the case, then this book is the source text for the subject of the article, and therefore a self-referential source. It would be better to cite a critique of the source text rather than the source text itself. I am unsure what is happening here. It could be that this text is a translation plus commentary by a scholar, and if this summary is coming from a scholar's critique and not the author of the Wikipedia article, then it is an appropriate source. For me to evaluate this I need more information from the submitter. Who is presenting the text "who am I? how did the world come about? what is it?" as a summary of the book? Is there a scholarly critique which summarizes the book this way? Besides the hook, what about the information in the contents section? Is the contents section mostly the summary of what scholars have said about the book, or is this a direct Wikipedian-written summary of the book itself?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. The original manuscript is in Sanskrit (WP:Primary). In the 18th century, it was commented on by a Tamil Sanskrit scholar named Ramachandrendra Sarasvati (also known as Brahma-yogin, a WP:Secondary source). In the 20th century, that WP:Secondary work was translated into English and analyzed by AG Krishna, which the wikipedia article relies on. The "who am I?..." etc is both in the Primary and the Secondary sources, but per WP:NOENG, I have relied on the English language source. To make the article useful to readers and as a reference, I have included cites to second and third sources. There is no "direct Wikipedian-written summary of the book" type OR in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Bluerasberry: if you know of any other sources which you feel I have not considered, sources that critique the primary text (Annapurna Upanishad) or the secondary sources already cited, please share. I would love to add a summary from it (or them) into the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks, everything is in order here. This meets all the DYK criteria.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)