Talk:Anekantavada/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will be reviewing the article in a few days.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "According to person name or XYZ explains by example," is needed in blue BMW example in Nayavāda. Else may be considered OR.

 Done Added the necessary citations along with the persons name.

• Sometimes IAST notations are not followed correctly. e.g. Siva should be "Ṣiva" in IAST or Shiva in normal Indian English. others include Saiva, Vaisnava, Visnu, calukya.

 Done Atleast in almost all cases....I don't know if some ofthem have been missed out.

• WP:OR in case of Hemachandra. Ref does not say: "Anekāntavāda was effectively used by Ācārya Hemacandra to convert King Kumarpal of Gujarat to Jainism" The term "Anekāntavāda" is not used in the entire article.

 Done 1) Changed the sentence so it does not violate the OR policy esp. the "conversion to Jainism" part. 2) The article does not say Anekantavada, but he used the principles when he bowed before the non-Jain God shiva. Still if you feel that it is OR, then we can remove this incidence. But I feel that although its not a widely known incidence, it may add some value to the article.

If you find a ref to support that Hemachandra followed Anekantavada, then the whole para is justified else the mention of Hemachandra is OR too.

Actually, in the next para, I have mentioned the incidence of Hemacandra with Kumarapala's predecessor, King Siddharaja where he uses Anekantavada. John Cort in "Intellectual Ahiṃsā revisited" criticises the comparison of Anekantavada with "Intellectual ahimsa" and says that Hemacandra used Anekantavada extensively to praise as well as criticise other religions. Hence I request you not to see this particular para in isolation.

I google searched "google books" and did not find a conclusive ref to prove that Hemachandra used Anekantavada. If you put a ref saying explicitly that Shiva story is a principle of Anekantavada, i will not consider it OR. It can be argued that maybe Hemachandra was a secular or that Hindu gods were adopted in Jainism; refs for adoption of Hindu gods in Jainism are available in Ganesha and Chamunda.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hemacandra was not necessarily secular, he did promote Jainism, but at the same time he did also promote religious plurality. His secular works include treatise on Sanskrit grammar. Please check out this link where this quote of Hemacnadra is given in reference to religious tolerance and anekantavada. See page 8 http://www.jainworld.com/pdf/LORDMAHA.pdf --Anish (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Query satisfied.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• ref 40, about Prof. John Cort. page nos. are mentioned, book is NOT.

 Done A good piece of detection by Redtigerxyz. Thanks!

• Personal views: OR "In anekantavāda, there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual himsa or violence, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, "either with us or against us" form of argument are increasingly apparent by the fact that the argument leads to political, religious and social conflicts"

 Done Added the necessary citations.

• "(Adi Shankara) He fails to take into consideration that the affirmation of the existence of an object is in respect to the object itself and its negation is in respect to what the object is not, giving an object positive and negative attributes at the same time without any contradictions." personal view, OR?

 Done A good point and thanks for pointing out. But it is not OR as this is mentioned by the author Pandya. I have added citation with I had forgotten previously.

• Primary sources used ? Were the English translations provided or are they by the author of the article? Original language of text? Please provide quote in original language in ref, if the ref is for a quotation in the article.
  • Bhagvatisūtra
  • Ācārya Siddhasena Divākara: Vardhamana Dvātrimṣikā, 6/2

Actually these quotes were teken from respective books and translated by the author of those books. I quoted the original text cited from which they were taken.--Anish (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Ślokavārtikka of Ācārya Vidyānanda, Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, verse 116
• ref 6 of Ronald, speaks about Jainism in general. I failed to find the word "Anekantavada" once imn the ref. Please quote the exact sentences on which foll. sentences are based:
  • "Proponents of anekantvāda apply this principle to religion and philosophy, reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy, even Jainism, that clings too dogmatically to its own tenets, is committing an error based on its limited point of view."

Clarification: Ronalds article contains this sentence - "The Jain doctrine of syadvada is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, even including any assertion that Jainism is the right religious path." The article does not contain the word "Anekantavada" but does contain "syadvada" which is a part of Anekantavada. I trust that this addresses your concern.

The statement above contradicts the meanings here: "Jains have three doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning:

anekāntavāda—the theory of relative pluralism or manifoldness; syādvāda—the theory of conditioned predication and; nayavāda—the theory of partial standpoints" Still an OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion as Ronald mentions only Syadvada. But let me explain. Ronald has also used the phrase “multiple viewpoints” instead of the word “Anekantavada”. Another thing I have noticed, certain authors (not all) tend to equate Anekantavada with Syadvada and tend to ignore nayavada all together. I guess this happens in any philosophical concept or theory with many authors having different views. So I guess that Ronald is not contradictary, with the statement that you quoted, which is again a well referenced statement. We do need to consider a very broad base of authors and scholars in discussing concepts like Anekantavada etc. to ensure that all views by different authors are addressed....in spirit of Anekantavada of course!!! :)

Query satisfied. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "According to the Vedānta conceptual scheme, the Buddhists were wrong in denying permanence and absolutism, and within the Buddhist conceptual scheme, the advaitas were wrong in denying the reality of change. The two positions were contradictory and mutually exclusive from each others' point of view.[6] The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising positions with anekāntavāda."

 Done U are right. It was a mis-citation....it was not Ronald but Koller.

ON HOLD.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and putting it on hold to make further improvements. This is an excellent review that will help improve the article.--Anish (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RESULT:PASS, assuming that the all other refs (book refs, which i have no access to) are not "misinterpreted" in any way (citecheck tag added). --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you are successful GA nominator, i think you can be a good GA reviewer too. Please review GANs, if possible. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Redtigerxyz for promoting this article as GA and for all the help and comments that improved this article. However the “Citecheck” tag is still there on the top of the article. Can it be removed or what should be done to get it removed. Secondly, in your opinion, should I nominate this article for featured article status? Is it ready or still some thing needs to be done?--Anish (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To remove the Citecheck tag, someone (other than a major contributor to an article) should check the references actually say what they are claimed to say. Once someone has done this, it should be noted on the talk page and the tag should be removed.

This should be fixed before nomination for FA.

You may like to list the FA criteria on the talk page here, and explain where you see evidence that the article meets these criteria. I, for one, would be happy to second your opinion (if I agree) and help you interact with FAC reviewer comments after we nominate it, given that you and I will have already agreed the article is at a suitable standard to nominate it. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to see that this article now looks quite good, thanks to the contributors. I am planning to go over it carefully in the next few days. --Malaiya (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Malaiyaji for your help. Thanks Alister for your tip. If I replace all the primary sources with secondary sources, would it help?--Anish (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I have gone through the article and did not find any discrepancies or internal contradictions in the article. The article cites scholarly references and bibliographies, especially citing scholars like Dr Paul Dundas, Dr John Cort, Prof Dr A N Upadhyaye, Prof Dr Hermann Jacobi, Prof Dr Padmanabh Jaini, etc. who are top notch Indologists. I suggest that the Citecheck tag be removed and this article be nominated for FAC. --Manish Modi 11:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Something to add

I think the article by Mahalanobis (perhaps India's greatest statistician, founder of Calcutta's prestigious ISI) is quite interesting. He correctly points out that the formulation of the Anekanta concept has a close relationship with modern probability theory (and I think fuzzy logic), specifically probability distributions. Since I have worked on probabilistic treatment of reliability issues, perhaps I should add something about it.--Malaiya (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fascinating Malaiya, please do this. I imagine I don't need to remind you that saying Mahlanobis is right is fine on the talk page, but inappropriate in the text itself. I presume he is right, but all we need to do is present the argument, not an evaluation. I think it's great you do think he's right, because one who understand and appreciates an argument is often the best to write it up neutrally, but fairly. Please try to keep it as non-technical as possible, because some of us may find it hard to follow. I'll do what I can to help if possible, since I have a little stats, maths and philosophy in my background too. Thanks once again, be bold, teach us! Alastair Haines (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)