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 within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
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)
Lack of inline sourcing
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:
Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.
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)reply
I do not agree with your approach. The lack of inline sourcing is a problem that I would like to see fixed. For someone with your level of knowledge of the material, things may seem trivial. But please help make the article verifiable by adding inline citations as much as possible in order to raise the quality bar not only here, but on other related articles. I have added the standard sections for critical apparatus per
Wikipedia:Guide to layout, which will result in inline footnotes being called "Notes" and "References" will contain a list of works cited. This approach is being used on more Hinduism articles as a result of upgrades to reference quality.
Buddhipriya19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Please use English sources when available
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."
Buddhipriya19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I know. Look, this is an obscure topic, and its not like I have a full bookshelf of references on it. If you can cite an English langauge reference, so much the better, but for now we'll have to make do with what we have.
dab(𒁳)20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
What you have given is better than nothing, thanks for adding it. I have a few sources that can be added, but this article is not currently a high priority for me either. I will add a couple of general English sources to the Further reading section pending adding some inline citations from them later. Little by little the article can be improved through teamwork.
Buddhipriya20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Proposed re-write
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
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment : Sanskrit is an open-syllabic language so the ending vowel sound i.e. "a" in this case is automatically present without explicitly mentioning unlike in Hindi.
Nagarjuna198 (
talk)
10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose Nagarjuna198, can you please clarify why you say first 'मीमांस =Mīmāṃsa', and then propose a change to Mimāṃsa? Note the first syllable. The Cologne Sanskrit dictionary
[2] has 'mImAMsA', again note the initial syllable and the final A. This does not correspond to either the current article spelling or the proposed new one. Kittel's Kannada dictionary (I agree it is a derived work in a derived language, but there is no reason why it is not otherwise a useful reference) has the same initial syllable as the Cologne dictionary. For a change to be made we should have some further references and some explanation of why those should be followed.
Imc (
talk)
20:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Qualified Support move to Mīmāṃsa, though given the recent questions over 'Mahabharata' in Sanskrit I would prefer some confirmation from someone knowledgeable that it is the correct form in Sanskrit to transliterate from (since this is clearly the Sanskrit word being used in enwiki).
Imc (
talk)
07:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Move to Mīmāṃsā (note all vowels are long, including the last 'a'. The only change from current title is that the 'i' should be long). This is in fact the name used throughout the article, and is the correct spelling as in academic sources, dictionaries etc. (See
[3] for instance.) I'm just noticing the discussion at
Talk:Mahabharata and will comment there, but fortunately it's not applicable here.)
Shreevatsa (
talk)
08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.