The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Anekāntavādaphilosophy of Jainism encourages its adherents to consider the beliefs of their rivals and opposing parties?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As of December 3, 203, the first sentence of this otherwise-excellent article reads, "Anekantavada is the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India." What do those last five words modify? What, in other words, "emerged in ancient India"? It could be "the Jain doctrine," but it also could be the "metaphysical truths." A would-be editor has no way of knowing which.
By the bye, doesn't that same first sentence assume, in a way that is not consistent with Wikipedia's aspiration to objectivity, that those supposed "metaphysical truths" really are true? Shouldn't it speak, instead, of "metaphysical beliefs" or "alleged metaphysical truths"? 2603:6010:100:6E85:F5BE:80DD:5F4A:2B26 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think you're not understanding what "metaphysical truths" actually means in this topic. Which is fine -- terms in philosophy are grotesquely overloaded. If you read the article a bit more then the first sentence of the lead is unambiguous and neutra; all the necessary information to convince you of that should ideally be in the lead itself, but this is a very broad subject that gets deep into facets of Vedic epistemology, so a thoroughly descriptive lead may not be manageable.
To be clear, your criticism is valid in that the lead is not adequately descriptive -- I have no idea what anekantavada is, even a little, after reading the lead -- but I'm not sure of a brief way to introduce some of the meat of it. So if you have any ideas you should by all means give it a try. SamuelRiv (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
