Talk:Mīmāṃsā

message: 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.  Can anyonje watching this page state why it should not be removed as a copyright violation? --Kbh3rd 03:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lack of inline sourcing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please use English sources when available 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed re-write