Talk:Mahabhashya

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mahābhāṣya contains special characters that are not standard. The more common spelling in literary works as well as encyclopedias is Mahabhasya (without the special characters). For eg. see Britannica. Most of the Google results for Mahābhāṣya return Wikipedia mirrors[1]. Most of the Wikipedia-independent articles, books and write-ups use Mahabhasya or Mahabhasya. I think the use of non-standard special characters in the article is unnecessary. It should be moved to Mahabhasya. 220.227.179.5 14:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rename. Other articles such as Mahayana are similarly named without the special characters. –Pomte 10:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Diacritics aren't "non-standard".--Húsönd 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to say that the diacritics are "non-standard" -- what I mean is that in this case, Mahabhasya is more commonly used spelling than Mahābhāṣya -- for eg. see Encyclopædia Britannica entry on Mahabhasya. There is no official transliteration scheme for Sanskrit/Devanagari -- this case is similar to Hindī and Hindi; since Hindi is the more commonly used spelling, the article exists at Hindī per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). 220.227.179.4 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Sanskrit is generally transcribed with diacritics. It's crucial in determining the specific phonemes. Serious English texts often do use the full form (as opposed to simplifying it for simplicity). Examples include:
  1. Process and language : a study of the Mahābhāṣya by Hideyo Ogawa.
  2. Critical studies on the Mahābhāṣya by V P Limaye.
  3. The Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali : with annotations by Surendranath Dasgupta and Sibajiban Bhattacharyya.
  4. Development of Sanskrit language : during the period between Mahābhāṣya and Kāśikā by P Visalakshy.
  5. Three problems pertaining to the Mahābhāṣya by Johannes Bronkhorst.

... among many others that you can find at a good library. As I always argue: when multiple spellings exist, opt for the most correct and ensure that redirects exists for the others. That seems to be the case here. Bendono 11:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Need for inline references

The massive additions made to this article without any inline citations should in my opinion be removed. According to WP:V any material added must be verifiable or it may be removed. Inline citations permit verification. Furthermore, according to WP:LAYOUT, only works cited in Notes should be listed as References. Thus this article is currently completely unreferenced. Since my rejection of the unsourced material was reverted, I will add fact tags over the coming weeks to request inline citations. If none can be provided, the material should be removed. Buddhipriya 09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was and still is a mere stub. It is unfortunate that only "additions" by me are being singled out by Buddhipriya. Had Buddhipriya cooperated in wikifying this article, I would have provided the sources for my additions. I deliberately avoided sourcing, because the source is one of the most respected living authority on Sanskrit grammar, but I felt this "authority" was somewhat wrong in his assessments. Paninian system contains the Prakriyā method which is wrongly considered by this unnamed authority to be a contribution of later grammarians. But Buddhipriya will call it my OR, instead of helping me in sourcing the true ideas. I am, therefore, deleting those ststements which Buddhipriya has tagged for 'citation needed' , because Buddhipriya does not show a constructive and positive attitude by helping me , which was shown in svadhyaya. Wikipedia does not need truth does not mean Wikipedia should contain falsehood. Wiki must contain "sourced truth". -Mr Jha 09:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please name names. If you have taken material from a "most respected living authority", there may be inadvertent copyright violations involved. And if you have paraphrased freely, there are WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR to worry about too. That said, please be careful of evaluations, such as "It was with Patañjali that Indian linguistic science reached its definite form". Either this is the opinion of someone notable, or it is WP:OR. Fine for a blog, but not at all on WP. rudra 05:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: sorry, I was looking at the wrong diff. The "definite form" sentence does not appear to be yours. rudra 05:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahābhāṣya. 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/20070819034059/http://hin.osaka-gaidai.ac.jp/cardona/ to http://hin.osaka-gaidai.ac.jp/cardona/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)