Talk:Parshvanatha

Digambara, Svetambara in the time of Parshvanatha

@Capankajsmilyo: Do you have reliable source(s) that states Digambara and Svetambara sects were already established in the time of Parshvanatha or Mahavira? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said that. Who did? There was one single sect as far as I've read the sources. What I'm disputing is the mention of differences in the teaching of two and interpretation of Chaturyama Dharma. As far as sources are concerned, Dundas and Shah mention about analysis of PK Modi and Jaini, which has not been given any weightage. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"The differences between the ideas between Parshvanatha and Mahavira", this is the primary point of my dispute and tags. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

They are different. One had four restraints, other five. There was a long debate, per the three cited sources. Later Jain scholars tried to explain and reconcile the two. We need to add a section that explains this reconciliation effort, which I plan to in coming days. Why was all this not included before you filed for GA review? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"They are different" says who? Source? Digambara consider their teachings to be same. It didn't grabbed my attention at that time. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Say the sources. Are you alleging the sources are stating that both taught five restraints? That's absurd. Click those sources and read them please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dundas, page 32. Fourfold interpretation is not unanimously accepted. It can also be related to (mind, body, speech and senses). Why are you ignoring that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there are multiple interpretations. We need to explain those different sides, per NPOV guideline. This article should not pretend the equivalent of 4 = 5. The differences/similarities between Parshva and Mahavira is in mainstream scholarship, covered in numerous RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

See this. Its only Svetambara which consider their teachings to be different, not Digambaras. That needs a mention. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Yes. Digambara POV / Prafulla Modi's analysis needs to be included. We already have had the summary, "PK Modi rejects the theory of difference in Parshvanatha and Mahavira's teachings" in this article, for a long while. It needs to be better explained. We will. But please know I see a systematic push of Digambara POV in wikipedia articles, where you are active. For example, your GA nominated article, before my first edit, called Rishabhanatha as "After being initiated as a Digambara monk, he..." in the lead! That is amazing OR and irresponsible POV-pushing. This is not okay for NPOV. Let us avoid similar issues in this article. All traditions, Svetambara, Digambara etc need to covered here. This is not only fair, but due because a vast majority of female Jain mendicants have been and are Svetambara! Their views matter, gender balance is important in wikipedia, as are proper NPOV in this and other Jainism articles. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content and OR

@Capankajsmilyo: Please see this source, and do not add unsourced content. I welcome NPOV. However, NPOV can only be based on views that can be verified in reliable source(s). Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The source you have mentioned has a Svetambara iconography and talks about Svetambara texts only. The content is too less too, merely 2 paragraphs. I thought we discussed it in detail before, above, and about PK Modi, CR Jain, P S Jaini and KC Jain, view on the same. I'll suggest, avoid stating the biased view as a fact and make it neutral in lede. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo: Well, you are doing the same OR with Britannica source, and were inserting your personal views in front of the cite. We can only write in the lead/main what the sources state:

Policy: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

If you add something that is supported in one or more reliable source(s), I would welcome that. But add only that which is supported, and please do cite your RS with page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parshvanatha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 17:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge of Jainism itself, I mostly edit about Buddhism. But as a result, I am familiar with some Prakrit terminology.

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:

• No plagarism was found.
• The article reads well, is not too technical, and in-universe writing is generally avoided. Please note though that the name Parshva is not consistently spelled in the article.

2. MOS: Needs some tweaking. Lead contains citations. These need to be moved to the main body of the article per WP:LEAD. The In Literature section needs to be rewritten as prose.

3. References layout: There are no dead links, and references are complete enough to be readily identified.

4. Reliable sources: There are a number of primary sources, which have been used correctly.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: A number of subjects may have been overlooked. The Encyclopedia of Hinduism, p.208 states that Parshva was a soldier, which is not mentioned. The same article also mentions that the question whether Parshva wore clothes was part of the differences between the two Jain schools (page 211). You have also not mentioned that he joined a community of monks, and what forms of self-mortification he practiced (p. 325). Also, in several sources, such as this Encyclopedia Brittanica article, Parshva is described as one of the founders of Jainism. Although Jains do not see him as a founder, it appears to be mainstream scholarly opinion and should be mentioned.

7. Focus: The Wiki article stays focused, and the size of the article is perfect.

8. Neutral: Yes. The article shows different, sometimes conflicting opinions on every matter.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Pictures are relevant and licensed, except for File:Parsva_and_Dharnendra.jpg, which needs some fixing.

Detailed review per section

• Though not a problem for GA, there are many duplicate wikilinks in the main body of article, that is Varanasi, etc. Use this tool to identify them.
• You do not use diacritics in the article. I think it is better to use them, since the article is quite specialist in nature. Also, though not a GA criterion, foreign language words should be italicized.

Lead

• As mentioned above, the citations should all be moved to the body of the article.
• Benares is archaic, and should be between brackets instead of Varanasi, or left out.
• Wikilink first instance of Svetambara and delink the next one
• The Digambara view on Parshvanatha has not received much attention in the lead.
• reject the theory of difference: awkward. Try to rephrase this with verbs instead of nouns, e.g. reject that the two are different
• a professor of Sanskrit known for his publications on Jainism. Too detailed for the lead. Cut out.
• Parshva is popularly seen as a ford-maker... as a teacher?

Historicity

• four vows In the lead and here you say fourfold restrain, four restraints and four vows. Settle for one.
• ...some parts of historical claims... You mean claims made by traditional sources?
• Doubts about his historicity are supported by the most ancient Jain texts... Confusing. Do you mean to say that ancient texts do not clear up the confusion about Parshva's historical dates? Or do you mean that ancient Jain texts themselves directly express doubt about Parshva's timeline?
• Universal History Is this a chapter name, or a technical term?
• two Jinas Please expand what this terms means.
• lack the iconography the iconography of Parshvanatha or that of all the Tirthankaras?

Birth

• the dark half of the month, to reach a wider audience, you might consider using a term also used outside of India, e.g. waning moon, fortnight of the lunar month, etc.
• Benares: see above.
• the Tattvarthadhigama Sutra state the twelve householder vows to be...: state that the twelve householder vows are...
• don't: Colloquial. Do not is better.
• take a perpetual and daily vow to go only certain distances and take only certain directions Confusing. If this is about restricting oneself to not travel too far, say so. If this is about not visiting places that are detrimental for the spiritual life, say so. If it is both, say so.

Omniscience

• the Jain texts state he married Prabhavati, the daughter of Prasenajit (King of Kusasthala)... Interesting. In Buddhism, that king is believed to be a contemporary of the Buddha. (Just a thought here. Nothing to fix.)
• translates a Jain text as stating...: Complex. Try In Heinrich Zimmer's translation of a Jain text...
• entered the practice of meditations: started practicing meditation? Started training his mind?
• Pausha month (December/January): Better to add the western equivalent at first instance of the word Pausha.
• He meditated for 84 days before attaining Kevala Jnana under a Dhaataki tree near Benaras. Shortly indicate the source to prevent "in-universe writing" (I admit this is not the best term for religious texts, but for lack of a better term).
• Shortly state in brackets that a jnana is a state of meditation or explain in it in some other way.
• The Jain mythology describes gods of various heavens attempting to distract or harm Parshvanatha, but the serpent god Dharanendra and goddess Padmavati guard him as he journeys to omniscience No need to put this in a note. It helps to follow the story of Parshva's life.

Moksha, death

• On the 14th day of the moon in its waning cycle of the Chaitra month (March/April), Parshvanatha gained omniscience. According to whom? Remember the encyclopedic tone.
• The gods built: wikilink to Deva (Jainism)?
• contemporaneously: contemporaneous with whom?

February 2018

I will continue with a detailed review per section later. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.

I see you have started working on the article. I will continue the detailed review tomorrow. I am glad you were available that quickly. After having finished the review, I will check upon your progress and let you know if anything else needs to be fixed. Sukhi hotu.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Before I forget, you can always put your responses here as you see fit.

I will continue this as soon as I hear from you again.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Try again once you are available, okay? See you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit Talk

It's wrong to say that Digambara texts are dated to later centuries. I have removed this statement. Mr. Jaini took his lessons from a Shwetamber scholar. His opinion about Digambara texts can't be trusted as unbiased or neutral.-Nimit (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parshvanatha/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Hello? You there? I started reviewing this article 11 days ago, and I'm wondering if you missed the automated bot message informing you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vami IV:. I did miss the bot message. Thanks for starting the GA review. Will fix all your points soon. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 18:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• There should be a link to Dharma in Jainism in the text (ford-makers or propagators of dharma)
• He was the earliest exponent of Karma philosophy in the recorded history. Which recorded history?
• [...] whereas historians point that he [...] Point out?
• Digambaras disagree with Śvētāmbara interpretations. Redundant, remove.

Done Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Style

• There are instances of both "BC" and "BCE".

Done Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Jain biography

There are terms and pieces of information in this section that, as a Westerner with little grasp on Indian religion, escape me with just the article alone. Ideally, the article prose would introduce or explain these; examples of this would be the tirthankaras, which are explained, but in parentheses (replace these with a comma; it is best to use parentheses sparingly and for notes like these, which provide small details). Others, like what Indras are, are not explained.

@Capankajsmilyo: –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Colossal statues

Expand this section. There are six sentences - one without citation - in this section, none of which detail why or how Jains build these statues, or trace their creation through history.

Hi Capankajsmilyo, Citation is added for the sentence with missing citation. Pratyk321

GA progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Status query

Vami IV, Capankajsmilyo, it has been over a month since anything was posted to this page or to the article. Where does this nomination stand, and will there be any progress soon? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Tirthankara infobox, Died should be replaced with "Moksha"

In Tirthankara infobox, Died should be replaced with "Moksha" Sajai007 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

historicity

Is he accepted as historical by scholars or not? The intro says so, but the body makes a convincing argument against it (the absence of evidence, the similarity with other mythical figures etc). This was flagged in the GA review over a year ago so really ought to be cleared up by now. 92.17.144.186 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)