Talk:Anekantavada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anekantavada is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Date: 04:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Jainism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Anekantavada, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion Related task forces (major traditions): Eastern philosophy

This page is listed on the bounty board deeptrivia has pledged to make a donation of $15 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status.

A fact from Anekantavada appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 March 2008.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Add comments

Contents 1 Peer Review Comments 2 Second Look 3 Peer review 4 A note on Ahimsa for Alastair 5 The lead... 6 Article structure 7 Jain articles 8 Slight POV 9 Third look 10 Sanskrit 11 GA Review 12 Copyedited.

[edit] Peer Review Comments

For convenience, I am copying the comments on peer review here from this talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Anekantavada/archive1.

Ruhrfisch comments: I will review the remaining five articles on Jainism - I see The Rambling Man has already reviewed one. If I may make a suggestion, it might be better to pick one or two articles as models and work on them and apply the lessons to all of the other articles too. Also asking for other reviewer's comments at WP:PRV may get some more feedback. Anyway, I found this to be an interesting article and hope these suggestions help improve it:

• While the current lead is well written and a good introduction to the topic, it does not summarize the whole article. My rule of thumb is to see that each section header is at least mentioned in the lead, even if only a phrase or word. So, for example, Gandhi is a section, but it not in the lead. See WP:LEAD

Y Done Mentioned Gandhi and adhgajanyāyah, maxim of Blind Men and Elephant in the Lead.

• Perhaps the current lead could be made into an overview section right after the lead
• References come right after the punctuation and need a space following them, so "...blah.[1] Blah" See WP:CITE

Y Done Corrected Punctuation and Citation.

• The article needs more references - any attribution should be sourced, so According to Jains, the ultimate principle should always be logical and no principle can be devoid of logic or reason. needs a ref (which Jains or where do they say this?) See WP:V

Y Done Added references wherever I felt that it could be challenged and construed as POV. But a third opinion on this will help.

• References themselves need to follow consistent format - for example page numbers are given for some book references, but not all.

Y Done Ensured Consistency and added page number in most of the cases. In one or two cases, I will need to re-borrow the books and search for the references agan. But this objection has been more or less taken care of.

• Per the WP:MOS, please do not repeat the title of the article in section headers, or start a header with The, so "Role of Anekāntavāda in ensuring survival of Jainism" would just be "Role in ensuring survival of Jainism" or "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity" would just be "Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity" (and is it "Jain" as an adjective or "Jaina"?

Y Done Also used Jain consistently instead of Jaina. As some author followed old IAST spelling of Jaina, I used it when referencing them.

• Try to avoid jaron where possible or explain it - the article does a fairly good job explaining non-Englsih terms, but there are some philosophical / religious terms that could use a breif explanatory phrase or sentence. Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication... what is conditioned predication? See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR

Y Done This particular case "Conditioned Predication" is taken care of. Any such additional case, then please point out.

• Avoid POV language, for example "outstanding" in Ācārya Haribhadra who was an outstanding proponent of anekānta,... See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK

Y Done This particular case is taken care of. Any such additional case, then please point out.

• While there is certainly a role for quoting scripture, the article needs to rely more on outside points of view (which strikes me as a very Anekāntavāda thing to say, if I have understood the article). So, for example, in the section on Gandhi, I would quote Gandhi, but also find a biographer who discussed the influence of Anekāntavāda on Gandhi.

Y Done This was very helpful as it improved the section considerably.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I note that Nayavāda is listed as one of "The Three Jaina Doctrines of relativity", but is not in the box on Jainism - there seems to be a discrepancy here.

Y Done Added to box. This was a good suggestion.

Could also use a copyedit, especially for punctuation.

Y Done Tried to opy edit, I dunno if I was successful. Maybe you can help.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Look

Second look While the article has been improved further, it is not yet ready for FAC in my opinion, and at least needs a copyedit - ask at WP:LOCE or the copyeditor volunteers at WP:PRV. Here are some points to consider - these are examples and not an exhaustive list.

• For example, a fair number of references still have a space between the puctuation and the ref itself. I fixed these in one section as an example.
• The references are still inconsistent - for example Current ref 1 is "Dundas (2002)p.231" (no space before or after "p."), ref 3 is "Grimes, John (1996) p.34" (space before "p." but not after), and ref 17 is "Dasgupta S.N. (1932) p. 2" (spaces before and after "p.").
• There is still a use of "Anekantavada" in two section headers: "Anekāntavāda in Jain scriptures and teachings" (could be just "In Jain scriptures and teachings") and "Andhgajanyāyah : anekāntavāda in parables" (which could be perhaps "In parables: Andhgajanyāyah")
• Some direct quotations are still uncited - Ācārya Divākara further states in Sanmatitarka :"All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres... and Ācārya Vidyanandi provides analogy of ocean to explain the nature of truth in Tattvarthaslokavatika- 116 : "The water from Ocean contained in a pot... both need references, for example.
• I write geography articles mostly and am not an expert on religion or philosophy or articles on them, but I would imagine at FAC people who are more knowledgable on Jainism / Religion / Philosophy would weigh in. I would try to find them before hand and ask them to look at the article with a critical eye. Are the references reliable? Is there enough third-party information or does it depend too much on sources from within Jainism? These are questions I can ask, but sadly not answer.

I hope this helps and agree it has improved, just not enough to get through FAC yet. Hope this helps too, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Just doing some copy-edit work on the lead atm. I should check the source claiming ahimsa is Ghandi's policy. I thought this was a very long standing principle, in Hinduism and especially Buddhism. I will be delighted to discover this is Jainism instead. Though perhaps all three religions agreed on the principle and the name for a long time.

I spelled out the meaning of the an prefix in Sanskrit, but didn't mention the sandhi in ekānta. Again I should probably check the source, just to make sure these things are covered there, or add another source to cover them.

I've just got home after a long day and will need to get back to this tomorrow. Thank you for this well-written, accurate and informative article. I am enjoying reading it already. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair. I hope to put up this article as a featured article some day. Your help is really appreciated.--Anish (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note on Ahimsa for Alastair

Ahimsa is essentially a philosophical concept followed by all Indian religions, but it is probably of a Jain origin. Western world identifies it with Mahatma Gandhi not surprisingly. But Gandhi himself was influenced by Bhagvad Gita and Srimad Rajchandra, a Jain scholar who was his spiritual guru. So I guess Hinduism and Jainism had an equal impact on Gandhi’s philosophy.

The Vedas are replete with animal sacrifices and meat eating. It is only after the age of Mahavira and Buddha, that Ahimsa was accepted in Hinduism or Vedic religion. Even in Buddhism vegetarianism is not compulsory. Buddhist monks are obliged to accept whatever food that a householder may give as long as the no animal or bird or fish is specifically killed in order to feed the monk. In fact, Buddha is said to have died after eating rotten pork. Only in Jainism, the doctrine of Ahimsa enjoys an unchallenged supremacy from the beginning.

The Hindu scholar and , Lokmanya Tilak credited Jainism with influencing Hinduism and thus leading to the cessation of animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has described Jainism as the originator of Ahimsa and wrote in a letter printed in Bombay Samachar, Mumbai:10 Dec, 1904:

"In ancient times, innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifices. Evidence in support of this is found in various poetic compositions such as the Meghaduta. But the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahminical religion goes to Jainism."

Swami Vivekananda ^[1] also credited Jainsim as influencing force behind the Indian culture:

"What could have saved Indian society from the ponderous burden of omnifarious ritualistic ceremonialism, with its animal and other sacrifices, which all but crushed the very life of it, except the Jain revolution which took its strong stand exclusively on chaste morals and philosophical truths?..--Anish (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

These are excellent sources Anish! Danyavat! I'm sorry, I got distracted today. I will spend some time as your helper tomorrow. Since I have now learned you are good at finding sources, I will ask for more! ;) Sorry to ask you to do so much work, but it will make this good article even better! Alastair Haines (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask me any sources on Jainism in particular and Indian religions in general. I own more than two dozen books on Jainism by western and Indian scholars and my friend owns a book shop of Indological books. So no Problem !!! I really appreciate your help. Please do ask me for more sources which you think that will make this article pass FA test.--Anish (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lead...

...is far too long. PiCo (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right, as always friend PiCo. I will see what I can do to help with moving material from the lead to other sections, maybe some new ones.

I'm thrilled to discover we have a contributor providing so much information for us on Jainism. I hope a few of us will rally around and give the text a make-over. I might even try to stay with this article and assist it to FA. There is so much I don't know about Jainism, and here's an opportunity to learn. If only there were more than 24 hours in a day! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that lead is a bit long....but I dont want to compromise on the peer review comments provided by User:Ruhrfisch. But please do carry out changes taht you feel are necessary. Thanks for the comments.--Anish (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Ruhrfisches comments make sense and are similar, but helpfully suggest exactly how we can improve. I will either make any big edits to the lead all at once, so you can change them back easily (unless you agree they do help make your work look better); or I will make the changes at a temporary page so you can agree to them first. In my mind, you Anish, are the boss. This is your work, anything I do is simply help more people feel it is even better than it already is. Content is king. You know the facts (the sources). I can only work with style on this subject. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Post Scriptum @ User:Ruhrfisch Gibt es wirklich, daß Fische noch im Rhein leben? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, although I have worked on this article, I have my limitations and cannot find obvious flaws in it. So I need help and I dont believe in reverting any good faith edits. Please edit this article mercilessly if you think it will improve. That's all I want..to have atleast one featued article on Jainism. I did some homework on lead section of Anekantavada (313 words long) to put things in perspective. The length of the lead section of following featured artilces was as :

• Flag of Germany - Words 266
• Israel – Words 406
• Glynn Lunney- Words 187

There seems to be no fixed norms for length of lead section. Ofcourse these length of lead sections is as on 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC) and is likely to change with new edits.--Anish (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good research! :) I've had people complain that leads I've written are too short. In other cases, I've had people change leads down to two sentences. I agree there's no clear standard on this. However, I think a view common to Ruhrfisch, PiCo and myself is that we need to think through the logic of the lead. When logic is not clear, sometimes people call things long. Even when things are long, if the logic is clear, people rarely comment on length.

As I slowly understand the article myself, I'll understand the logic, and then understand how to summarise the logic in the lead. I hope that will make everyone happy. I suspect it will. In any case, information should not be removed from the article, just presented in the best possible order -- there is probably more than one excellent way of doing things. ... and, of course, everyone has different perspectives! :D Alastair Haines (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

Currently, the article has the following sections:

1. Three Jain doctrines of relativity
2. Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality
3. In Jain scriptures and teachings
4. Andhgajanyāyah : Parables of Blind Men and an Elephant
5. Intellectual ahimsā and religious tolerance
6. Influence on Mahatma Gandhi
7. Criticisms
8. Role in ensuring survival of Jainism

I'm trying to think of a systematic way to order the ideas. Writing goes in a line >>>------->> but ideas go in trees. We need to turn a tree into a line. One line could be a time line: Jain scriptures > Jain doctrines > Role in survival > Gandhi > Intellectual ahimsa. But I am not sure that is actually the historical order. We could make a logical sequence: Jain doctrines > Intellectual ahimsa > Jain scriptures > Blind men and elephant. But I am not sure if that is the right flow of ideas.

Can you help me Anish? How do you see the sections connecting with one another? Are they all just perspectives on the one thing? :D Or are some perspectives closer to one another than others. Which section is the "head" of the article? Which the "ears", "trunk" and "tail"? :D Alastair Haines (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making me think! I tried some research by checking the structure of some featured articles on religious and philosophical concepts and could not achieve anything as there are no such featured article. So I think a logical sequence would be better rather than a timeline as, Anekantavada is a concept rather than an event or a person. I have though of a new order. Suppose we follow this logical sequence:

Origins>> Overview>> Scriptures>> Tolerance>> Influence on Gandhi>> Criticisms

So we can add a new section : Origins and Etymology. We can “borrow” some sentences from lead section for Etymology and this will reduce the lead section also. I will start some research on Origins.

Now, does this structure look logical?

1. Origins and Etymology
2. Philosophical overview
   1. Jain doctrines of relativity
      1. Syādvāda
      2. Nayavāda
   2. Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality
   3. Andhgajanyāyah : Parables of Blind Men and an Elephant
3. In Jain scriptures and teachings
4. Intellectual ahimsā and religious tolerance
5. Influence on Mahatma Gandhi
6. Criticisms
7. Role in ensuring survival of Jainism

--Anish (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shabash Anish! Looks excellent to me. :) Origins and Etymology really helps me feel, as a reader, that I'd be starting with the basics and working forwards. If the research gets slow. Let me know, perhaps I can find a book in one of the big libraries in Sydney (I visit these quite often). But, something tells me you will have more information available to you than I could ever find in Sydney. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I don't think these articles are ideal, but sin and salvation are logical despite being big, because they are concepts found in several religions. For a less common religious term, in an article I largely rewrote myself see supersessionism. I'm not totally happy with that article yet, but it does show some of my style, though my style is not ideal in everyone's eyes either. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now checkout the new structure and changes I have made. You may like it as it is a bit similar to supersessionism. --Anish (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might have a better structure than supercessionism. ;) What do you think about the idea of moving Role in Survival of Jainism upwards in the article to conclude the historical section? This doctrine has featured in Jain history like this and, overall, this has been significant in the relevance of Jainism.

Seems to be a good idea and it gels with History.--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think intellectual ahimsa and Gandhi could be one section, they are closely related. In other words, change the Gandhi heading to a sub-heading. I think that would give a structure like: Lead-Philosophical idea-History-Ahimsa-Criticism. I think the story of the elephant and the blind men could also be included somewhere in the Philosophical idea section (at beginning or end of that section). It is very helpful to make the idea clear, so maybe the beginning would be good.

Seems to be logical. Let us try it and see how it looks.--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm suggesting moving two sections upwards (Survival and Elephant) and making the connection between Ahimsa and Gandhi closer (just by changing the heading level). I would be very happy with that overall structure myself, but you're more an expert than me.

Maybe in Jain doctrine I may have some knowledge but I need independent opinion of neutral persons like you to improve this article. My bias would prevent me in improving this article.;)--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The next thing to look at is probably what we put into italics. Any word that is not in an English dictionary should either be in italics or translated. We should try to have as little untranslated Sanskrit as possible, because English readers just can't even guess at Sanskrit. However, we do need several Sanskrit words, because they are so exact and because English readers will like to learn some new words (just not too many).

You are right, let the article not look too technical. Its helping that you ahve a good grasp of sanskrit words.--Anish (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about the structure ideas above? What would you say are the 20 most important Sanskrit words in the article? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes as suggested by you. But I have few queries -

• Should we italicise even anekantavada everywhere it occurs ? Same with syadvada ? What about names of Acaryas ? Should they be in italics? How about Mahavira? Should his name be in itialics?
• inter wiki linking - Mahavira appears 7 to eight times in the article. Should it be linked always? Or only first time it appears or maybe first time it appears in a section? Whats the policy or convention?

Secondly, Can you copy edit? Also whereever you feel that citation is required can you tag it with ^{[citation needed]}? It would be a great help.--Anish (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jain articles

I am trying to think logically about Jain articles too.

Do you know other Jain Wikipedians?

Some of these articles are very informative for me.

• Namokar Mantra
• Ahimsa, Satya, Asteya, Aparigraha, and Brahmacharya
• Svetambara, Digambara

Perhaps there is a plan for all the Jain articles somewhere? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You can also go through the following articles that I have either started or substantially contributed. I think they are also ready for peer review.

• Ahimsa in Jainism
• Karma in Jainism
• Jain Philosophy
• Jainism and non-creationism

Would appreciate your time on these articles also. There are very few Jain wikipedians and non-jain wikipedians who are interested in Jainism. (can't blame them, sometimes it becomes too technical).--Anish (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, it is our job to say the technical things in non-technical language, and let people know the source so they can check if they want to. I think I will stay involved with the Jain group until I am not needed any more. I love learning and Jain ideas seem very interesting, very influential but, as you say, under-represented at Wiki, and maybe in other places too.

Swetamber is normal for Jain people? That is, wearing white is normal, or just for holy people? Monks and nuns? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

White is worn by Svetambara monks/nuns. Digambara monks are more orthodox and do not wear clothes but nuns wear white clothes. The lay persons dress normally and cannot be distinguished as Jains by outward appearance.--Anish (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slight POV

On a holistic basis, I'm impressed by the accuracy of this article. However, there are some instances in short sections that seem to be biased. For example, I was a bit disturbed to see a description of Buddhism as "nihilistic". I removed the description, but I am still concerned about the section it was in, "Syncretisation of changing and unchanging reality". I suppose it would be best to check the entire article for things that may be construed as POV. I'm very sure the problem as a whole can be fixed easily, just not by me, because I know I am biased towards Jainism. --Qmwne235 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right as usual! I agree that nihilism may not be the right word. But as you can see that many authors consider its philosophy as nihilism as can be seen here It may be due to misunderstanding as Buddhism does not believe in soul. But it seems that you have taken care of it.--Anish (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third look

Looking three times also seems to me to be very much in the spirit of Anekantavada ;-). This is really much improved - kudos to all involved. Here are some final thoughts with an eye to FAC, this seems no problem for GA now:

• Lead is five paragraphs which may cause problems at FAC - could the first and second paragraph be combined?

Y Done now it looks more compact.

• Any chance of wikilinking some of the philosophy terms in According to Thomas McEvilley, the Jain theory of knowledge is not a phenomenalism but a realistic correspondence view.[9] - I am not a philosopher and if it just said According to Thomas McEvilley, the Jain theory of knowledge is not an A but a B.[9] it would mean about as much to me - with links I could at least be more confused ;-)

Y Done Was a good idea as usual.

• FAC tends to jump on blanket extraordinary claims like the one italicized here: "These Jain philosophical concepts made the most important contributions to ancient Indian philosophy, especially in the areas of skepticism and relativity.[9]" Perhaps attribute it "According to McEvilley, these Jain philosophical concepts made ..."

Y Done I thnk POV was a problem here...I removed the word most

• Missing word? Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that [the?] epithet Syād be attached to every expression.[13]

Y Done "The" is always a problem with me.

• Missing words? Each of these seven propositions examines the complex and multifaceted [nature of?] reality from a relative point of view of time, space, substance and mode.[15]

Y Done makes more grammatic sense.

• Need a ref for To ignore the complexity of the objects is to commit the fallacy of dogmatism.

Pending Y Done ref already existing in other statement!

• Missing word? The Vedānta school represented by advaitins postulated [the?] absolute unchanging reality of Brahma and atman and claimed that change was mere illusion.[19]

Y Done

• Refs should be in numerical order (also need an "s"): so The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising position with anekāntavāda.[21][22][6] should be The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising position[s] with anekāntavāda.[6][21][22]

Y Done both ...more logical.

• While most people have heard of Buddha, sadly Mahavira may require a phrase of explanation - see WP:PCR

Y Done true....taken care of!!

• Needs a ref: Thousands of questions were asked and Māhavīra’s responses suggested a complex and multifaceted reality with each answer qualified from a viewpoint. According to Jainism, even a Tīrthaṇkara, who possesses and perceives infinite knowledge, cannot express reality completely because of the limitations of language, which is of human creation.

Pending Y Done Forgotten to add...thanks for pointing out

• "century" with a lower case c (9th century) (13th century)

Y Done

• Typo in quote? should be "a partial" in "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of an partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect...

Y Done...silly typo corrected..thanks

• Missing word? Kundakunda also used nayas to discuss the essence of [the?] soul in Samayasāra. Essence of soul sounds like he is refering to soul music ;-)

Y Done hahaha.....changed the "perspective" :)

• Does medieval have a different definition in Jainism / India than in Europe? The centuries quoted seem a bit early for medieval for my thinking (but I could be wrong)

Y Done this is an important point.....changed the heading as suggested by the author.

• Needs a ref: After Yasovijayaji, there was a period of stagnation, as there were no new contributions to the development of Jain philosophy.

Y Done

• When someone is not wikilinked, provide a phrase as to why they are an authority, so According to [historian? philospher?}Christopher Key Chapple, ...

Y Done

• Provide rough dates in Role in ensuring the survival of Jainism section for context
• Needs a ref: On the other hand, the many-pointed approach was claimed by the Jains to be immune from criticism since it did not present itself as a philosophical or dogmatic view.

Pending Y Done

• Perhaps explain why Gandhi's mother was a source of Anekantavada?

Pending

I am sure FAC will find things I never thought of - good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great reviewing, Ruhrfisch! Nevertheless, perhaps this article needs a fourth look, just for copy-editing. For example, I noticed that when the blanket claim "most" was removed, the word "the" remained, leaving "made the important contributions" instead of "made important contributions". This could be interpreted as meaning "the only important contributions"! We need to make sure that the reviews didn't reduce the flow of the article. --Qmwne₂₃₅ 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Qmwne, it was my fault….I know it needs some copy-editing…I tend to miss out on such small but important things.--Anish (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole writing and reviewing process as a whole contributed. When I went through my review, I went back a second time and found some gramatical errors that I had made. One or two of the examples Ruhrfisch pointed out of missing words were probably my fault.--Qmwne₂₃₅ 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are also some statements, such as "According to Thomas McEvilley, the Jain theory of knowledge is not a phenomenalism but a realistic correspondence view.", that should be more fully explained. Right now, its placement in an odd spot and a lack of explanation as to its importance and relation to the rest of the paragraph and article make it seem like it was just a jumble of words paraphrased from a book. While I trust that it wasn't, please have mercy on the philosophically challenged. While I appreciate the linking, there are some sentences that should probably have a paragraph of their own to explain them. --Qmwne₂₃₅ 16:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you…but when you are dealing with an article on philosophy, you cant avoid such technical terms…that is why they are wikilinked!! We have used words like – Epistemology, Ontology, Metaphysics, Dialectic, Polemic, Doxography, Predication …and many more. Imagine if we are to give definition and explanation of these terms, then the entire focus on Anekantavada will be lost. The article will become more complex and unreadable. Ofcourse these are my views..please fell free to make any changes that you feel will improve the article.--Anish (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that defining complex terms should dilute the actual content, but the particular sentence I pointed out appears to be in an odd location in that it seems to have little relevance to the statements around it, although it is relevant to the article as a whole. Perhaps it would be better to either move it (although it doesn't seem to fit anywhere else) or explain its connection to the surrounding paragraph. This would help maintain the organization of the article.--Qmwne₂₃₅ 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are Right. We may consider removing it if it does not add any value to the article.--Anish (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it does contribute in that it establishes that Jainism believes that sense-data (to use Russell's term) accurately respresent the object that cause them to be perceived. Although the context may need to be more fully established, I support keeping it in the article but moving it to another section or paragraph. However, it doesn't make a great difference, and since you've already removed it, I suppose it would be best to keep it that way. The paragraph flows much more nicely now. --Qmwne₂₃₅ 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanskrit

Am I wrong here?

• an-eka-anta-vāda
• not-one-be(ing)-know(ing)
• non-one-ness-ism ~ pluralism ~ non-exclusivity

An is the standard prefix of negation. Eka is just the number one. Anta is a form of the verb "to be". Vada is commonly used as a suffix refering to philosophical or theological schools of thought, like "-ism" in English, only vada actually implies knowledge, where "-ism" is just an ending. The English words "video" and "wit" are believed to be related to vada, where sight is related to knowledge (like with the gaja) and cleverness and humour also.

I think we could express this more clearly. It would also clarify why monotheism would be called eka-anta-vāda. The word can be used appropriately in many different places. In fact, it's not just a word, it's a compound, it's flexible, at least in Sanskrit.

Does that sound fair? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual you are right and it makes more sense. Why dont you expand your idea more on the article?--Anish (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PS If the lead is felt to be too long, I would recommend moving the history and etymology out to their own sections. If it is still felt to be too long, I'd then move the final paragraph out to the Survival of Jainism and Gandhi sections. The parable of the gaja is so clear and helpful I think it should go before the extension to the general philosophical statement of objects and their attributes. However, these could be reversed depending on a consensus of editors opinions. Personally, I'm comfortable with the length of the lead.

I think lead is quite OK and should not be reduced.--Anish (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS I'll keep visiting for a little time each day, and work through copy-editing the whole article again. I like the overall structure at the moment. Even if I am not working on the article, I am always watching. I agree it is already a good article, and look forward to hearing input from FAC reviews. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)--Anish (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anekantavada/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the 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.

Y 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.

Y 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.

Y 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.

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

Y 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"

Y 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?

Y 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
  • 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!!! :)

• • "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."

Y 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)

[edit] Copyedited.

Copyedited by ukexpat (talk) – 19:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I fixed some reference punctuation, and made spelling and some minor textual changes for flow. I am not qualified to judge appropriateness of references and citations.

Thanks...please do visit regularly to copy edit till this article received FA status.--Anish (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)