Talk:Hathigumpha inscription

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hathigumpha inscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232906/http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/HathigumphaInscription.pdf to http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/HathigumphaInscription.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232906/http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/HathigumphaInscription.pdf to http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/HathigumphaInscription.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have cleaned up and expanded this article from this version.  This is an important Jainism-history related article. You are welcome to improve it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good improvement. Better organised in more sections and complete reading of inscription. I have added a link to Namokar Mantra at one place. I think names of scholars and places need linking to their respective articles. I have added few links. - Nizil (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review comments 

message: Hello, readers. I have noticed repeated vandalism on this page by examining the edit history. I want to promote healthy discussion on reliable sources to resolve this edit warring. Barua's translation of the Hathigumpha inscription is well-understood, but it has had its own share of criticism and most importantly, the apex body has not published them. When we compare it with Epigraphia Indica Vol. XX, it does not amount to a reliable source as per Wikipedia's standards as per my understanding. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:OLDSOURCES. As much as I understand from my limited experience of editing here, as per Wikipedia's policy on sources, the translation published by the apex archaeological survey body of the state (The Archaeological Survey of India) should accepted in case of a contention because if there was a breakthrough in the archaeological research there, it would have been published by the body. The only legal body surveying India's archaeological sites is the Archaeological Survey of India, so their publications are the most authentic in case of a contention. Besides, the translation published by the body is also usually the internationally accepted standard. See:
# The Archaeological Survey of India: https://archive.org/details/epigrahiaindicav014769mbp/page/n97/mode/2up?view=theater
# University of British Columbia: https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/full-text/24/1.0340476/0.txt
# University of London: https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29097/1/10731192.pdf
# University of California Press: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/c125c9b3-4eb5-439f-8857-5df80c7424fe/bridging-two-worlds.pdf
If there are other publications by the body that I might have missed, please discuss them here. In case there are contentious views and sources, alternative translations by independent scholars should be posted, but deleting content endorsed by reliable sources is simply vandalism. In my opinion, a new section on alternative translations can be created and other views and translations which are not published by the Archaeological Survey of India can be published in that section. I encourage healthy discussion on what might be most suitable for Wikipedia without resorting to edit warring. RJShashwat (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Alternate Translations