This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mīmāṃsā article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to be verbatim from either http://www.zongoo.com/article2982.html or http://atc.ruv.net/infopedia/hi/Hinduism.html#Purva_Mimamsa. Both those have copyright notices, and neither says anything about the GFDL. It seems that someone somewhere is being plagaristic — this article or one of those, or both of those from here among others, if this is where they got it and claim copyright without GFDL. The structure of those other pages make it seem more likely that the Wikipedia article is not the original, though. In addition, it appears that the original author has a checkered history of plagarism. [1] Can anyonje watching this page state why it should not be removed as a copyright violation? -- Kbh3rd 03:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am concerned by the poor sourcing on many Hinduism articles. I have added a tag pointing out the lack of inline sourcing on this article. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability which says in a nutshell:
Buddhipriya 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't exaggerate. We don't need inline sources for every sentence, certainly not in a short (single page) summary article. This is all pretty much a rendition of what is in Britannica too. dab (𒁳) 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:CITE: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate." Buddhipriya 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to substantially re-write and extend the article on mImAmsA as follows -
1) Better structure and background info to make it accessible and informative for someone who doesn't know anything about the topic
2) Make clear in the overview exactly what is interesting and important about this topic
3) Re-write the literature section in separate paragraphs discussing the contents of the more famous texts, and also give some indication of the relative importance of different texts
4) Explain the historical development in the intellectual content of this darsana (as far as I am able), and in particular the split into two opposing schools (bhAtta and prAbhAkara) - currently, some statements are only true of one school
5) Make comparisons with other darsanas on substantive philosophical issues, such as the means of knowledge, knowledge of the self, cause and effect etc.
6) Remove some statements which are false or misleading (e.g. the brief comparison with vedAnta, which is too partial to give any clear insight; the claim that it is one of only two surviving darsanas, which is false)
7) Add more references to English publications as previously suggested on this page
If anyone would like more details of why I think it needs changing or what the proposed changes will look like, or doesn't agree with my proposal, please notify this.ffffff
-- AbhinavaH ( talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
please have a go -- this page can well do with some informed attention. dab (𒁳) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved to Mīmāṃsā. -- BDD ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Mimāṃsā → Mimāṃsa – Sanskrit: मीमांस should be written as Mimāṃsa and not Mimāṃsā check Mimāṃsa Nagarjuna198 ( talk) 02:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Amended proposal: Mimāṃsā → Mīmāṃsā – In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC) User:Imc? User:Shreevatsa?
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mīmāṃsā article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to be verbatim from either http://www.zongoo.com/article2982.html or http://atc.ruv.net/infopedia/hi/Hinduism.html#Purva_Mimamsa. Both those have copyright notices, and neither says anything about the GFDL. It seems that someone somewhere is being plagaristic — this article or one of those, or both of those from here among others, if this is where they got it and claim copyright without GFDL. The structure of those other pages make it seem more likely that the Wikipedia article is not the original, though. In addition, it appears that the original author has a checkered history of plagarism. [1] Can anyonje watching this page state why it should not be removed as a copyright violation? -- Kbh3rd 03:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am concerned by the poor sourcing on many Hinduism articles. I have added a tag pointing out the lack of inline sourcing on this article. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability which says in a nutshell:
Buddhipriya 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't exaggerate. We don't need inline sources for every sentence, certainly not in a short (single page) summary article. This is all pretty much a rendition of what is in Britannica too. dab (𒁳) 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:CITE: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate." Buddhipriya 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to substantially re-write and extend the article on mImAmsA as follows -
1) Better structure and background info to make it accessible and informative for someone who doesn't know anything about the topic
2) Make clear in the overview exactly what is interesting and important about this topic
3) Re-write the literature section in separate paragraphs discussing the contents of the more famous texts, and also give some indication of the relative importance of different texts
4) Explain the historical development in the intellectual content of this darsana (as far as I am able), and in particular the split into two opposing schools (bhAtta and prAbhAkara) - currently, some statements are only true of one school
5) Make comparisons with other darsanas on substantive philosophical issues, such as the means of knowledge, knowledge of the self, cause and effect etc.
6) Remove some statements which are false or misleading (e.g. the brief comparison with vedAnta, which is too partial to give any clear insight; the claim that it is one of only two surviving darsanas, which is false)
7) Add more references to English publications as previously suggested on this page
If anyone would like more details of why I think it needs changing or what the proposed changes will look like, or doesn't agree with my proposal, please notify this.ffffff
-- AbhinavaH ( talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
please have a go -- this page can well do with some informed attention. dab (𒁳) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved to Mīmāṃsā. -- BDD ( talk) 05:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Mimāṃsā → Mimāṃsa – Sanskrit: मीमांस should be written as Mimāṃsa and not Mimāṃsā check Mimāṃsa Nagarjuna198 ( talk) 02:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Amended proposal: Mimāṃsā → Mīmāṃsā – In ictu oculi ( talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC) User:Imc? User:Shreevatsa?