Talk:Mīmāṃsā

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Hinduism: Philosophy Top‑importance

	Hinduism portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Top-importance).

India Mid‑importance

	India portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Eastern High‑importance

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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Eastern philosophy

Copyvio?

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.

Buddhipriya 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Buddhipriya 19:12, 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." Buddhipriya 19:25, 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. Buddhipriya 20:54, 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

--AbhinavaH (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please have a go -- this page can well do with some informed attention. dab (𒁳) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

The result of the proposal was moved to Mīmāṃsā. --BDD (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mimāṃsā → Mimāṃsa – Sanskrit: मीमांस should be written as Mimāṃsa and not Mimāṃsā check Mimāṃsa Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for this Nagarjuna198, but any idea where are WP:Naming conventions (Hinduism), WP:SANSKRIT? It would really help if there were some links to project guidelines here. romanization of Sanskrit redirects to Devanagari transliteration in which long ई is long ī, so why dosn't Sanskrit मीमांस = Mīmāṃsa with long ī? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- मीमांस =Mīmāṃsa and मीमांसा = Mīmāṃsā with long आ (ā) as per Devanagari transliteration. In Hindi(which also uses Devanagari), it is sometimes written as मीमांसा and sometimes मीमांस. However in sanskrit as a noun form, it doesn't require long आ (ā) or Deergha. please check Mimāṃsa . I am not sure if there are any naming conventions such as WP:Naming conventions (Hinduism) Nagarjuna198 (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thanks, was asking about ī. So the nomination should actually be ī not i? Do you want to correct it? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the old naming conventions proposal for Hinduism was folded into the existing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Imc (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nagarjuna198 is just wrong; he introduced the wrong spelling into the article without doing due diligence, and now wants the article itself moved to the wrong spelling. Ugh. See this Google Books search comparing the two spellings, or look up a dictionary. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:27, 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]

Oppose Thanks guys. I may be wrong here. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then that's all 4 participants agreeing that Mīmāṃsā with long ī and long ā [and long ā] is the correct title.

Therefore:

Amended proposal: Mimāṃsā → Mīmāṃsā – In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC) User:Imc? User:Shreevatsa?[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]
Yes 'i' is definitely long (ī) vowel. @Shreevatsa: Can you explain why last 'a' should be long wrt Sanskrit Grammar?Nagarjuna198 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking just for information. Its already established that both should be long vowels. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because this word mīmāṃsā is one in the feminine gender, like sītā, gītā, mālā, gaṅgā, yamunā etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shreevatsa. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move Mimāṃsā -> Mīmāṃsā Nagarjuna198 (talk) 11:33, 15 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.