Talk:Mahavira

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Mahāvīra)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jainism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 Mahavira, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Requested articles  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it was formerly listed at Requested articles.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Mahavira's teachings are more or less duplicated in the Jainism page. We can prune the extra material and keep here only the details that cannot be found on the Jainism page.
Jay 22:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've checked and I don't see an excessive overlap in content, but have moved the Jain prayer section to Jainism. The Teachings section that is here should stay IMO. It covers what Mahavir taught during his lifetime, which is not entirely the same as covering present-day Jain beliefs and practices. Mkweise 04:28, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mahavira's dad was *the* Siddartha?[edit]

"Being a son of the King Siddartha (Siddartha Guatama)...". Is that right? Does (mainstream NPOV) Jainism say that Mahavira was the son of Siddartha Gautama (the founder of Buddhism)? That doesn't sound right / familiar to me, although I have only an interested amateur's knowledge of Jainist doctrine. Poking around on the Web confirms that Mahavira's father was a person named "Siddhartha", but was it really the Siddhartha? Wouldn't want Wikipedia to be inventing such an interesting fact... (And is "Guatama" just a typo for "Gautama", as the Google check sort of suggests, or what?)

There are no accounts that suggest that The Buddha was the father of Mahavira - they were contemporaries, but most certainly unrelated - we should probably clarify this in the article. Also, are there any sources that say that Mahavira's father was Siddhartha Gautama, as opposed to just Siddhartha? The use of the word Gautama is what seriously bothers me here. --ashwatha 06:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Of course he wasn't "the" Siddharta. Moreover, Mahavira's father was no king and his mother was no queen. Siddharta was called raja, which is translated as king - a highly misleading translation in that case. Raja seems to have been, in Siddharta's case, just a title for a wealthy and prominent noble citizen. Mahavira's mother was the sister of "king" Cetaka of Vaisali (just a local ruler), but she was no queen herself. The terms "king", "queen", and "prince" should be removed from the article. The whole matter is properly explained in Helmuth von Glasenapp's scholarly book "Jainism". 85.212.204.34 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The Buddha was actually younger than Mahavira. --queso man 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See, the thing is correct that the Buddha was younger than Mahavira prabhu but you are saying that the parents of Vardhamana Mahavira were no king or queen, that is so true but also his parents were regarded as the highest in the city but was no king or queen. Devanshi Jain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.42.138 (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

Thus, the principles of Jainism, if properly understood in their right perspective and faithfully adhered to, will bring contentment and inner happiness and joy in the present life. This will elevate the soul in future reincarnations to a higher spiritual level, achieving Perfect Enlightenment, reaching its final destination of Eternal Bliss, ending all cycles of birth and death.

...

At the age of 72 (527 BC), Lord Mahavira attained Moksha and his purified soul left his body and achieved complete liberation. He became a Siddha, a pure consciousness, and liberated soul, living forever in a state of complete bliss. On the night of his Enlightenment, people celebrated the Festival of Lights (Dipavali) in his honor. This is the last day of the Hindu and Jain calendar year known as Dipavali Day.

And if I wrote in a Wikipedia article "On the third day after Jesus' crucifixion, he rose from the dead." or "Submission to Allah is the only way to achieve happiness," it wouldn't be acceptable. Major rewrites for this article are required if it is to sound less like propoganda for Jainism.--Conwiktion 16:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I mangled the article in an attempt to make is sound less like a work of apologetics and more like an encyclopedia article. It still needs major work. However, I am not an expert on Jainism, and I would appreciate if someone who was who is interested in writing a neutral article about Mahavira would revise the article.--Conwiktion 05:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the anti-idol stuff[edit]

Mahavir was completely against any sort of rituals, idol worship. I don't have any sources so i haven't made any changes. Another interesting fact to note would be that he never intended to create a religion or considered a god. I am jain btw Source http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:IAYPsMy31M0J:www.britannica.com/eb/article-59030+site:britannica.com+jainism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

Overview of Life[edit]

Mahavira was married as per Swetambar belief whereas as per Digambar belief Mhavir never married. Similarly Mahavir was not a son of King Siddharth and Queen Trishla. It is believed that the embryo of Mahavira was transferred from a woman named Devananda to queen Trisala. This was because, as per the jain philosophy, a Tirthankara cannot be born is the Brahmin caste, and since Devananda was a Brahmin, the embryo of Mahavira was transferred.

Definitely[edit]

Birth place Kundapura[edit]

In infobox Kundapura is given as birth place. I am seeing Kundapura in Karnataka. At the same time article mentions his birth place in Bihar. Please check the anomaly. Rāmā (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected...thanks for pointing out--Anish (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Typo!!!![edit]

I found a very obvious error in the 'Early years' section. The last line of the section reads: "He was interested in the core beliefs of Jainism and began to distance himself from worldly matters.he was bor-9-2050 n on 5" It would appear from the typo that the Mahavira was born on 5-9-2050, which, I think, would be somewhat of a surprise to his followers. As I don't know the actual date I thought it proper to point this out here.  :) 74.12.238.118 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Detailed of life needed[edit]

The article lacks most of the details.Malaiya (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you help in adding the details with reliable citations? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Mahāvīra or Mahavira[edit]

English language reliable sources use the term Mahāvīra, so I think this is the right title of the page as per the WP:ENGLISH. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Only because it exists in reliable sources does not mean that it should be included in the article as per Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Most commonly recognizable name of the subject should be used as per WP:COMMONNAME. Almost 99% google search results shows that common people and most of the reliable sources are using 'Mahavira', not Mahāvīra. Even most of the sources listed in article use 'Mahavira', not Mahāvīra(that was for Mahāvīra (mathematician)). No one may respond on this talkpage for a long time and your moves may go unchallenged for months as I said on ANI. neo (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Four out of five references currently present uses Mahāvīra[1][2][3][4] and the last one uses Mahāvira[5]. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. There must be consensus. And you moved page without consensus. neo (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion applies for inclusion of content not Article titles. Article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Article title are very much part of the article contents. And article titles are named as per WP:COMMONNAME. But as I am saying again and again, no one is going to comment on these deserted articles for months/years and your edits will go unchallenged for months/years. neo (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME mentions that "it [Wikipedia] prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable source". Please read the article before citing. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
You are using most of the few reliable sources to push your claim. Thousands of web sources commonly use 'Mahavira'. There must be few reliable books which write 'Rama' as 'Rāma'. Citing all those books in article to push for article name change from Rama to Rāma will be WP:GAME. And you are just doing that with this article. You don't discuss on talkpageg before making moves. You first do it, revert edits of other users and then force to talk. If nobody object, you win. This is certainly not a way for discussion. I have asked for third opinion. neo (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Article name: Mahavira or Mahāvīra[edit]

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.

The result of the proposal was moved. There's narrow consensus to move at this time, though I echo the call for the development a Sanskrit naming guideline. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

MahāvīraMahavira – 'Mahavira' name spelling is commonly used worldwide. Most of the few reliable sources are used in the article to move article name by single editor to new name 'Mahāvīra'. Do you support or oppose this new article name? neo (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Neo, a Requested move is needed, not a request for comment for article title change. Please close the Rfc and change it to a requested move discussion. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Changed Rfc to requested move as per Neo's note on my talk. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
A note is placed on user talks of participants of the Rfc who did participate in the RM yet about the conversion Rfc -> RM. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • comment WP:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization says that, where it's unclear what the "common name" is, accuracy (in terms of the conventions of the original language) can also be considered. So which spelling is more accurate with respect to this person's name in the origin language (which I assume is Sanskrit)? I don't read Sanskrit, but my guess is that the version with the macrons is more accurate (I might be wrong, though), and thus should be used. Ease of regular people finding the article is not an issue, since you can use redirects to make sure they find the article no matter which spelling they type in to the search box. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
So you think Rama, Ravana, Ramayana and hundreds of articles should be named to IAST names? 'Mahavira' is commonly written. The user used some books as refs in which it is written as 'Mahāvīra' and moved this article to IAST name without discussion. Some books also write Rama, Ravana, Ramayana etc in IAST. That does not mean we should use IAST spellings for articles. neo (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Neo, do books which usually use IAST not use it for this name? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • comment Changing the name of this article is not necessary. It is notable that calling the subject "Mahavira" throughout the article does not appear to be problematic. It's also very significant that Enclopædia Britannica considers "Mahavira" appropriate. There is no special obligation we have here to write the name differently. I would not staunchly oppose keeping "Mahāvīra", but none of the guidelines here require that specific way of writing the name. Ender and Peter 06:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Enderandpeter, why is that very significant, does Britannica normally use macrons for Sanskrit? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Not that I can tell, but they are another reliable source that spells the name without the macrons—probably because it's simply more practical to do it that way for an English encyclopedia. No Wikipedia policy encourages us to to name articles in ways that aid pronunciation, but there is one asking us to name articles based on the more common spelling found in such sources. Ender and Peter 04:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • comment Cart before the horse First sort out a draft guideline WP:Naming conventions (Sanskrit) / WP:SANSKRIT then ratify it through a broader RfC. (incidentally this is not a question of "diacritics" since all European Latin alphabet names on en.wp have their full Latin alphabet spelling with one exception, this is a romanization, therefore entirely a project decision). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It is better to keep the popular name "Mahavira" rather than the IAST name. It is more easily searchable and the link for the article does not look shabby.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Mahavira Agree with "Mahavira" being common name, rather than IAST. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose Mahavira: Mahāvīra is used in most of the reliable scholarly sources. Use of IAST helps non-native speaker in understanding the pronunciation. Mahāvīra is also consistent with Mahāvīra (mathematician). Rahul Jain (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • comment this policy says primary transliteration should be used while naming articles. Quote:

A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration. Primary transliterations may sometimes be less accurate than other transliterations.

Google search results for "Mahavira" 9,45,000 and for "Mahāvīra" 26, 900. So "Mahavira" is being used in more than 95% refs of wider english usage. So previous article name "Mahavira" was correct as per guidelines. I was not aware of this policy while starting Rfc. But the user involved in edit war and I was forced for this Rfc. neo (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So it seems we have a way of demonstrating that "Mahavira" is more common and that Wikipedia's policy is more partial to that. It really looks like it's best to remove the diacritics for the purpose of this article's name. Ender and Peter 04:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Mahāvīra would be consistent with Mahāvīra (mathematician). Rahul Jain (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Google search results, 'Mahavira mathematician' - 5,11,000 and for 'Mahāvīra mathematician' - 44,000. Admin Ruud Koot has moved that page by misinterpreting policy and without any consensus. I request you and other users to take a look at this thread on WT:INB. neo (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Transliteration is always difficult to do well, but we should avoid diacritics when doing so if the sources do, too. Red Slash 06:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: accuracy, transliteration, consistency, no standard usage and use of diacritics in many other non-romanised page names suggests keep the original title. After all, the US keyboard doesn't have ç or ñ on it either, nor å or ê or œ or ø or ü or ö or ë and yet these are all widely employed on Wikipedia. Just because it's a SCHOLARLY standard doesn't mean we should ignore it. Ogress smash! 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Bold text
  • Support : I stand by my previous comment. It is better to keep the popular name "Mahavira" rather than the IAST name. It is more easily searchable and the link for the article does not look shabby. This request for move should have come at the time of first move the name from Mahavira to Mahāvīra which was done suo moto by user Rahul Jain without taking into considering anyone's comments or views. For many years, the name of the article was Mahavira and not Mahāvīra.I suggest that it be reverted back to Mahavira immediately.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Mahavira is the name by which he is known internationally and this being an online English encyclopaedia, it makes more sense to stick to that name. All such names here should be written without the IAST to make them comprehensible to an international audience.--Zananiri (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Hate those alphabets which aren't on any of my keyboards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I question whether "hate those alphabets" is an appropriate vote. Ogress smash!
It is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


Redtigerxyz Talk 13:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent piece of work and research. Thanks. It is diligent editors like you who make wikipedia an excellent encyclopedia.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This actually clinches the argument in favour of Mahavira without diacritics in the title or page name.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2013 (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.

New section for off-topic comments in Rfc section copy-pasted[edit]

Is there reason you couldn't do this rewrite in your sandbox? — Lfdder (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why admin User:Drmies also think that Rfc section about name is related to my rewrite of the article. I had already answered above user on his talkpage but he simply removed my replies saying 'not interesting'. And anyway that rewrite is done enough, 'underconstruction' tag is removed, so what this question is about? neo (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you fix the references? — Lfdder (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Now I see the problem. Lfdder asks a question that has nothing to do with an RfC. Neo removes it without an argument saying that it has nothing to do with the RfC, so this is what you get. Lfdder, your questions have nothing to do with the RfC. Ask them in a different section. Let the rest of this section be devoted to the RfC. Of some relevance is WP:DIACRITICS, but it does not mandate one over the other. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Original research in Ascetic life and awakening section[edit]

My removal of original research was recently reverted. The upper half of the section "Ascetic life and awakening section" cites directly from Kalpa Sutra a relgious text. It says that "At the age of 30 Mahavira abandoned all the comforts of royal life and left his home and family to live ascetic life for spiritual awakening. He underwent sever penaces, even without clothes. There is graphic description of hardships and humiliation he faced in the Jain text of Kalpasutra" and provides two quotes from Kalpa sutra for it. It clearly falls into original research for it uses primary religious religious text as reference and should hence be removed. Rahul Jain (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not directly copied from some unpublished version of Kalpa Sutra. Academic published book source is given. Quoting text from reliable published sources is common practice on wiki. Pls read WP:OR again. neo (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in WP:OR allows us to use religious texts kalpa sutra itself for the above mentioned claim ("At the age of ... text of kalpasutra"). This is classic example of original research. One would require reliable secondary source for it. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
So that book is not "secondary source"? If some book use Quran, Geeta, Bible verses then you think those verses should not be "quoted" in the article? All religious articles like Quran do quote translation of religious text if it is published in reliable sources. neo (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The book "Jacobi, Hermann (1884). (ed.) F. Max Müller, ed. The Kalpa Sūtra. Sacred Books of the East vol.22, Part 1 (in English: translated from Prakrit). Oxford: The Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-7007-1538-X. " cannot be treated as a secondary source for the claim I mentioned above. Rahul Jain (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Why? Is Kalpasutra originally written by Max Müller and he published it through Oxford University Press? neo (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Because kalpa sutra is a religious text. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
And this article is about scientist? Are you arguing about relevance of content or reliability of source? neo (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
A religious text should not be used as a source to back up the claim ("At the age of ... text of kalpasutra") because that is original research. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
For religious figures, historical texts may not be available; most of what we know comes from hagiographies. Jacobi or Muller (English translations with commentary) will be secondary refs for Kalpa Sutra. Some thing like "The Kalpa Sutra states that Mahavira did ...." seems to be ok. However, the long quotes seem unnecessary and should be converted to running text. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The book presented here is a translation of kalpa-sutra in English by Jacobi. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Checked Muller. It has footnotes with commentary where needed. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Redtigerxyz. I was lazy and had copy-pasted that text from Jain monasticism which was originally included by user:Indian Chronicles. But argument of The Rahul Jain about reliability of source is invalid. neo (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Max Muller and Sacred Books of the East has been quoted extensively as a reliable source in Wikipedia. But what Tiger says makes complete sense. It is clear Rahul Jain is not able to interpret the Wikipedia rules properly, atleast in this case.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I cannot find anything in the commentary or the footnotes of the book by Jacobi/Muller that supports the claim that "There is graphic description of hardships and humiliation he faced in the Jain text of Kalpasutra". Can anyone mention the page number? As far as I understand the policy of wikipedia, if the translation itself is being used to support it, then it is original research. On the other hand, if that is the views of the author (Herman Jacobi or Muller) then it can very well belong on wikipedia. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

@The Rahul Jain: Kalpa Sutra also gives 'graphic description' of his ascetic life. If you have problem with 'humiliation' word, then it is mentioned in harvard source with regard to Acaranga sutra. I have rephrased text and have changed placement of ref. But that translated quote from book is not original research. neo (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Neo. You are right. We need to refer to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Quite evidently as specified in the policy, the Sacred texts by Max Muller/ Jacobi are authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. These have been used in featured articles also. There is no original research involved and they are reliable sources. Too much hair splitting, pedantic and rabid interpretations of the trival issues and policies will ensure that all the good and solid reliable sources will have to be deleted from Wikipedia. Indeed this was never the intention of the policy makers and Wikipedia will be poorer due to such depraved interpretation of policies. --Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)