Talk:Suprabhatam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
_name_of_the_God_as_per_the_Vedas.svg){kind=small}
wrong composers name i think
by far i know the person who first sang it was sage viswamitra to lord rama, when sage viswamitra took lord rama to kill the demons who were disrupting the homas. it was the second day when sage viswamitra sang it to lord rama for waking him up..i am sure of this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.42.228 (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
type of poem?
shouldn't it be correctly said "...is a type of ... poem" instead of "is a Sanskrit poem"...? please correct this if necessary. thank you! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Including all verses of Suprabhatam or Strotram
I noticed that @Bowie1021! add verses of Prapatti and also noticed entire Suprabhatam or Strotram, which I reverted. Bowie1021 added a source when they restored my revert, which is a devotional WP:PRIMARY source. Also, including entire verses is WP:UNDUE and not encyclopedic - wikipedia is not to share entire Suprabhatam or Strotram verses and their translations. However, using the primary source (and other WP:RS sources), historical details for Suprabhatam and Strotram and the other sections can be added along with key verses/detail of the verses - e.g. see Bhagavad_Gita#Chapters_and_content. Also when citing, should include page numbers - WP:CITE has further details. Reading WP:NOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING will also help. Asteramellus (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why is including entire verses of the poem WP:UNDUE? Its just the content of the poem not a minority viewpoint.
- See for example this poem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah!_vous_dirai-je,_maman Bowie1021! (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, removing the content greatly diminishes the value of the article. I think the content is short enough to do so. Bowie1021! (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link for comparision and do understand your concern. But, it seems the link you gave is a short poem compared to what we have here for Suprabhatam / Stotram - and few verses can be included here, but not all verses. And not just undue, other policies e.g I have mentioned in edit summary WP:OR applies too for the translation and possibly WP:COPYVIO for the Sanskrit verses/transliteration. Also, when we include direct content from sources, we cite and include the content in quotes.
- Also, I again suggest that you read all the relevant policies WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOT, WP:CITE, WP:OR, which will help constructive discussion here.
- Just noticed this WP:NOFULLTEXT - may want to read that too. Asteramellus (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Fair points, we need not digress into interpreting policies (they are not at all applied consistently across Wikipedia).
- If I may ask, you edited the article back in 2024 but left the verses for the first part (the Suprabhatam)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suprabhatam&diff=prev&oldid=1207495454
- The second part (the Strotram) seems to have been added here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suprabhatam&diff=prev&oldid=1275886417
- I'm disappointed that we couldn't continue to add to this article for people interested in the Suprabhatam. Bowie1021! (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- yes, I do recall reading the suprabhatam last year. And agree with you about the policies and interpreting policies is not applied consistently. However, it seems including all these verses is stretching a bit all those policies. Maybe consider including the link to the primary source under a section for external sources. And also sections for Suprabhatam, Strotram etc can be added summarizing key details and some key verses citing primary source you have. Asteramellus (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Bowie1021! @Asteramellus If it's public domain the primary sources can be added to WikiSource, and the original Sanskrit is on WikiSource already; full copies should not be present in articles on Wikipedia, and even in limited amounts not without reliable secondary sources to interpret primary sources. The translations especially cannot be added as they are modern and copyrighted - I have reverted and revision deleted as such. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you both. Point taken. Bowie1021! (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Bowie1021! @Asteramellus If it's public domain the primary sources can be added to WikiSource, and the original Sanskrit is on WikiSource already; full copies should not be present in articles on Wikipedia, and even in limited amounts not without reliable secondary sources to interpret primary sources. The translations especially cannot be added as they are modern and copyrighted - I have reverted and revision deleted as such. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
- yes, I do recall reading the suprabhatam last year. And agree with you about the policies and interpreting policies is not applied consistently. However, it seems including all these verses is stretching a bit all those policies. Maybe consider including the link to the primary source under a section for external sources. And also sections for Suprabhatam, Strotram etc can be added summarizing key details and some key verses citing primary source you have. Asteramellus (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, removing the content greatly diminishes the value of the article. I think the content is short enough to do so. Bowie1021! (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)