Talk:Karma in Jainism/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Articleye (talk · contribs) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article can be passed if the problems listed below are addressed.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Use of "some" and "it is believed" should be supported with a cite or the entire sentence dropped: There is no clear consensus amongst scholars as to its origins, although it is believed by some that the concept of karma has a philosophical background that is non-Vedic and non-brahmanical origin.
 * DONE. Actually next two sentences were the supporting sentences for the current sentence and were well referenced. However as the reviewer has rightly pointed out, the sentences in question has also been referenced. Trust this satisfies the wikipedia policy.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * DONE. Actually next two sentences were the supporting sentences for the current sentence and were well referenced. However as the reviewer has rightly pointed out, the sentences in question has also been referenced. Trust this satisfies the wikipedia policy.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):

DONE Please check this link. It shows some other book quoting Hardy on the same matter. I will also put it in bibiliography. DONE Please see the link to this book. DONE DONE
 * Cite 45 cannot be verified, no entry for cite 45 (^ Freidhelm, Hardy (1990) p.57)
 * Cite 94 cannot be verified (^ Mardia, K. V. (1990) p. 10)
 * Cite 95 cannot be verified (^ Stein, Gordon (1996) p. 626)
 * Cite 47 cannot be verified (^ Flood, Gavin (1996) p.86)
 * Cites 35, 66 and 67 (^ a b Varni, Jinendra (1993) p.197) cannot be verified DONE
 * The first three sentences of the section titled "Scientific interpretation" need to be substantiated with citations.
 * 1st Sentence: Done
 * 2nd Sentence: I feel it does not require citation as it merely states that Karmic particles cannot be equated with elementary particles. Had it been mentioned that Karmic particles are similar to elementary particles, then it would have required some citation as it would have been a tall claim.
 * 3rd Sentence: The sentences following 3rd sentence show how some authors have tried to explain the concept of karmic particles in the context of modern science and physics which is well referenced.

Trust it satisfies you.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Kuhn has been removed but claims sourced to him remain uncited now. Fails WP:RS
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Kuhn has been removed but claims sourced to him remain uncited now. Fails WP:RS
 * Kuhn has been removed but claims sourced to him remain uncited now. Fails WP:RS

I hope all the problems are addressed. Thanks.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "Scientific interpretation" section, changes are still required:
 * However, these and other elementary particles that have been either discovered or postulated cannot be equated with karmic particles. Some authors have sought to explain the concept of karmic particles in the context of modern science and physics.
 * A critic may say that elementary particles and karmic particles do not even belong in the same sentence, hence we need to drop that sentence or substantiate it with a cite.
 * A critic may say that and a lot of other things but if authors are discussing it and it is referenced then a critic POV cannot prevail. Hermann Kuhn clearly discusses Karmic particles and Quarks and Leptons which is very well referenced. I personally feel that this sentence brings a proper balance to the article. But I have absolutely no issue with dropping the sentence as I will trust your judgement as a reviewer. I will drop this sentence. Done--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some authors have sought to explain... also fails WP:MOS. We need to drop "some" and state clearly whether it is a minority, majority or divided at 50%. I would add that Mardia cannot be considered a reliable, non-neutral source because he is a statistician and his primary field of study does not relate to this topic. Furthermore, he may have a conflict of interest because he is the chairman of the Yorkshire Jain Foundation, and vice-chairman and a trustee of the Jain Academy. It then appears to the reader that it is only one author - Hermann Kuhn who is being passed off for "some authors". Seen in this light, the whole section seems to have an agenda (to the critic), one of giving karmic particles and re-incarnation an air of scientific legitimacy. Articleye (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, I have mentioned only Mardia and Kuhn. There are a lot of other authors. Pick up any book on Karma, most books will discuss scientific interpretation of Karma. Believe me, it is one of the favourite topic. I already have two more sources and if I try to find I will get more sources. But then it will only serve to make this section longer and I do not want to increase this section. Hence instead of some we can write….. Certain authors like Mardia and Kuhn have sought to explain……. That should be specific.Done--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article meets all criterion for GA except that the section on Scientific interpretation still has problems.


 * We are adding almost as an afterthought, at the very end of the section, However, most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory.[94]. If that is the case why not begin the section with a statement like - Most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory.[94] Then go on to continue with the rest of the section.
 * Mardia is a biased or an opinionated source per Rs. If we are to use him at all then he should be quoted as "Mardia, a practicing Jain,..." or "Mardia, chairman of the Jain Foundation,...", etc.
 * Mardia's theory of karmons (K. V. Mardia, in his book The Scientific Foundations of Jainism, has interpreted karma in terms of modern physics, suggesting that the particles are made of karmons, dynamic high energy particles which permeate the universe.[93]) is a WP:FRINGE theory.
 * Regarding Kuhn, I am not able to find more information on the author in English but he doesn't appear to be a specialist in the field of karma.
 * The current distribution of content of this section is:
 * Consensus in the field: 1 sentence (12.5%)
 * Fringe theory: 6 sentences (75%)
 * Fact (Jain philosopher-monks postulated the existence of karma as subtle and microscopic particles...): 1 sentence (12.5%)
 * Total: 8 sentences


 * Considering all the points above, I am wondering if this section has a problem of WP:WEIGHT as well. If Most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory then we should have a distribution like (assuming we are to keep similar numbers):
 * Consensus in the field: (75%) or 6 sentences
 * Fringe theory (karmons, Mardia, Kuhn): 1 sentence
 * Fact: 1 sentence
 * Total: 8 sentences


 * You are welcome to expand the section (even encouraged per criterion 3a) but current coverage is good enough as long as the distribution is fixed. Articleye (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with your bullet points 1 to 3. The action points 1 and 2 will be done. As for your bullet point 4 on Kuhn, not sure how it is relevant here. But for your information, he is an expert in tattavrthasutra of which Karma is one part. He has published about 4 to 5 books and one of them is on Buddhism. I had met him once when he had visited India for lecturing on Karma. His details are available here


 * Till now I have trusted your judgement as a reviewer. As for your last point permit me to dissent from your view point. I do not agree with your distribution and weight. Now suddenly you are coming out with some arbitrary weight and distribution ratios which were never part of your initial review. I have read WP:FRINGE. If at all you want to assign your weightage, it should be in comparison with the entire article  and not only this section. By just comparing it with only this section, you are missing the issue. If you take only those sentences, one can argue that Fringe theory is 100%. Unfortunately this is a misrepresentation. Please read WP:FRINGE again. As far as weight is concerned, it is in relation to the entire article. In fact try to see the composition of this section in relation to entire article then you will realise that it is well balanced. The following two sentences provide a balanced view and its level of acceptability within the section and article viz:
 * However, most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory.
 * However, these and other elementary particles that have been either discovered or postulated cannot be equated with karmic particles. (Since you wanted to remove this, I have done it)
 * --Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Additionally let me add, that a quick search revealed that Kanti Mardia has been also quoted by other authors on Karmon, refer to links: Adain Rankin  and Natubhai Shah   Aidan Rankin can certainly not be considered as biased or opinioniated source.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Infact look at this author Jose Pereira who calls Karmic particle as indivisible elementary particles. For information Jose Pereira is not a Jain. --Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for others in the community to comment on this at: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Let us wait for responses, then continue with the review. Articleye (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I have addressed all your concerns and made changes as suggested by you.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Some comments have come on the notice board. But still not clear how to go about it. I am thinking maybe I should delete this section or make a cursory mention of 2 or 3 sentences. Please suggest your views.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment The name Scientific interpretations is misleading since karma clearly does not lie inside the boundary of science. The content in it can be written somewhere else in a different section, perhaps under material theory; since it is noteworthy that the karma in Jainism is also a matter (pudgala) rather than cause/effect only. Also this karmic particles are minute, perhaps indivisible particles according to Jainism, not according to science. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a very good suggestion by Rahul. It makes more sense and should address the concerns of GA reviewer.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Truncated from 8 to 5 sentences, deleted the section and merged it with Material Theory.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion by Rahul and a good improvement to the article. However based on the initial responses at RSN, we may have to replace Kuhn with a reliable source. Mardia can only be paraphrased in the context of his position as chairman of various Jain foundations or being a Jain himself. The source replacing Kuhn needs to follow WP:RS. Articleye (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think then it is better to delete those 5 sentences that contain the Kuhn references as Kuhn is not considered expert in particle physics and can be challenged. It is not worth the effort to put in additional source and maybe change the sentences. This will be a small sacrifice for GA rating :).--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What we are learning from WP:RSN is that Kuhn is not a reliable source. He is from a publishing house that solely publishes his works. We need to remove Kuhn as a source from the entire article (whether he is used for Jainism or it's scientific interpretation). I've already started doing that by replacing him with Richard Gombrich who is an is an Indologist and scholar of Sanskrit, Pāli, and Buddhist Studies. He was the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Oxford from 1976 to 2004. These are the kind of sources we need, not an author from a "boutique" publisher as someone called him at RSN. I will keep on replacing Kuhn with appropriate sources but it may take a while. You and Rahul are welcome to join in to speed up the process. 04:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articleye (talk • contribs)


 * I have absolutely no problem if the references of Hermann Kuhn are replaced with some more acceptable source. With my 6 day week 12 hour job I am find it a bit difficult to find time to search for more sources. Anyway, WP:RS says that, Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Hermann Kuhn work has also been published by Hindi Granth Karyalay, who is a reliable third party publisher. Refer Maybe then we can keep Hermann as a source? Please advise.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with Kuhn is about peer reviewed, reliable sources, not about being self-published though someone did point out that his publisher seems to be a boutique publisher. I'll wait until February 18 for Kuhn to be replaced, if none of us can do it, we'll have to defer making this a GA for now. Articleye (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed kuhn. Inline citations for those isn't strictly required as per WP:GACN. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just removing Kuhn is not enough. The claims made on the basis of Kuhn need to be replaced by mainstream reliable sources. Since the claims are still there, uncited, the article cannot pass GA criteria. This article is very close to GA as long as claims sourced to Kuhn are either removed, modified or sourced to another author. Please resubmit after the changes are made. Articleye (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. Will do that as and when we find time.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)