Talk:Umaswati

Unreliable source
I have some concerns about the text you're using as a reference:
 * Vidyabhusana, Satis Chandra (1920). A History of Indian Logic: Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Schools. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. ISBN 978-81-208-0565-1.


 * 1) First of all it was first published in 1920. So it's obviously not a WP:RS for history.
 * 2) The statements that you've added to article with the above mentioned reference clearly shows that the author's view are not supported by modern scholars. -Nimit (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DYK hooks discussion
, what is incorrect about the following main hook, and the sources in the article?
 * ... that Umaswati, an early 1st-millennium Indian scholar, wrote the oldest completely surviving text on Jainism philosophy?

If there is an "older, completely surviving text on Jainism philosophy", what is its name and please identify a reliable source for verification. Do you have a source for the following:
 * ALT1: ... that Umaswati, an early 1st-millennium Indian scholar, wrote the first completely surviving Jain text in Sanskrit language?

We may need to withdraw the DYK, if there are issues with this article or content dispute. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tattvartha sutra is not the oldest surviving text on Jainism. It is instead the first Jain text written in Sanskrit language. There are many Jain texts (in Prakrit language) which are older than the Tattvartha sutra. Jain texts authored by Acharya Kundakunda, the teacher of Acharya Umaswami are available today.-Nimit (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Acharya Kundakunda's texts exist. But does any Kundakunda's surviving texts offer a "complete presentation of the Jainism philosophy"? Do you have a reliable source for your claims? Please note that the first statement is based on Padmanabh Jaini edited preface, on pages xi-xiii of Tatia's book "That which is". Is your concern the wording, or something else? Would this be better, "... that Umaswati, an early 1st-millennium Indian scholar, wrote the oldest extant text that summarizes Jainism philosophy completely?" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That would be Fine. Can "in Sanskrit" be added.-Nimit (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Would this work "... that Umaswati, an early 1st-millennium Indian scholar, wrote the oldest extant text in Sanskrit that summarizes Jainism philosophy completely?" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oldest existing complete Jain philosophy is Samayasara. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  14:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: source? It better be of the same quality as publications on Jainism by Padmanabh Jaini and Paul Dundas. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, This would be okay. Samayasāra is no doubt a complete exposition on Jain philosophy. But, the statement ("... that Umaswati, an early 1st-millennium Indian scholar, wrote the oldest extant text in Sanskrit that summarizes Jainism philosophy completely?") is also correct (if we apply Anekāntavāda). -Nimit (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , I await the source for "Samayasara is no doubt complete exposition", the current wiki article on it is quite weak and needs better sources. The Tattvartha Sutra is more comprehensive and complete to me, but I am open to reading sources you provide and reconsider what Jaini and Dundas write. Meanwhile, if @Capankajsmilyo also approves the new hook @जैन approves, I will revise the DYK nomination page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try to provide the source soon. I have no problem with the hook. Please proceed. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Would this (page 25) be of some help? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  03:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Capankajsmilyo: It helps the DYK comment, Umaswati was Sanskrit scholar, while Kundakunda a Prakrit language scholar. But, pages 25-26 do not state, "Samayasara is no doubt the oldest existing complete Jain philosophy". The footnote 1 on page 25 acknowledges the widely divergent estimates on when Kundakunda lived. The source does not state Kundakunda's work is a complete exposition, just he was "first significant". On page 26, the same source writes, "if there is anything anyone knows about Jaina philosophy, then it is certainly from this work [Tattvartha Sutra]". That comment confirms the relative importance of TS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit related to Vidyananda
I have reverted your unsourced changes because wikipedia is not a personal blog to share one's opinions / views / prejudices / wisdoms. You are welcome to add content but you must cite a reliable source with page number and other details. Further, please stop removing sources and sourced content from this article as that is disruptive. If you have a concern with the Potter source, please explain your concern. The source mentions many scholars with the name Vidyananda, and if you read the cited pages you will see the 'Buddhist' part. For now, I have removed the word Buddhist, as that is not necessary here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - "Wikipedia is not a personal blog to share one's opinions / views / prejudices / wisdoms" - i am aware of this fact but i feel you are not, since you seem to be forcing text without sufficient verification. Further i would also like to remind you that Wikipedia is also not a machine to validate random facts by citing random pages of random books. And it would be worthwhile for you to avoid a condescending or pejorative tone during discussion, so that a reasoned and civilized discourse can take place. Here is the link to the pdf of the book 'Buddhist Philosophy from 350 to 600 ad. (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume IX)' - https://www.scribd.com/document/68222062/The-Encyclopedia-of-Indian-Philosophies-Vol-IX-Buddhist-Philosophy-From-350-to-650-AD  As much as i could verify from the glossary, the contents, and the pages 590-600, nowhere in the book is Vidyananda or Tattvartha-Sutra mentioned. If anyone else can find it, and also cite the relevant text, it can be added to the text later, but after proper verification. Another thing to mention is that there is a gross error on google books. The copy that google books has of the same book - 'Buddhist Philosophy from 350 to 600 ad. (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume IX)' is instead a copy of 'Jaina Philosophy I (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume X)', which is mentioned on the first page of the book. Jenishc (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Jenishc


 * I have a paper copy. It sure verifies. I will embed a quote. The various volumes of Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies is not a random publication. It is a much cited source. You are right about the Volume IX and X confusion on google books! But don't rely on internet scribd freebies. Buy the book or try a good library instead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "and if you read the cited pages you will see the 'Buddhist' part" - this just shows the extent of your bias towards buddhism, because clearly you havent read the cited pages, since the pages in volume 9 have nothing on tattvartha-sutra and pages in volume 10 have nothing related to buddhism. "I have a paper copy. It sure verifies." This is not possible because the printed version of both volumes 9 and 10 are online. I'm sorry but it is amply clear that you have simply been lying all along. I strongly suggest you to halt such activities on wikipedia articles. I also recommend using free online books for quicker verification and dissemination of knowledge. Jenishc (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Jenishc


 * If you are still unable to find Vidyananda in the cite, I suggest you let it remain per WP:AGF. Editors use citing bots, and it is quite possible that the bot migrated the google book cite errors into the old cite. I already fixed it yesterday. The source does mention Vidyananda take on Buddhist contentions such as on page 595 and 596, the old version was not worded right. Anyway, as I wrote above, we took out the "Buddhist" word as it is not necessary here. Please avoid personal attacks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Although this is only belabouring the point, it is necessary to state for record that the key issue was NOT that Vidyananda mentions buddhist contentions. The key issue was how the buddhists preserved Umaswami's Tattvartha-Sutra or even commented on it, none of which is even remotely related to anything mentioned in any of volumes 9 or 10 on pages 590-600. Jenishc (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)