Talk:Digambara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Jainism (Rated B-class, High-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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Definition of Digambar[edit]

Right now the page says dig means direction and ambar means clothes. However as per my information dig means sky and ambar means clothes. So digambar means one whose clothes is sky. Please let me know your response. Grsalvi (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


I will review this. It is a good one, but I believe we need to do much copyediting:

  • In the lead, please remove the citations and add the facts stated here to the main body of the article. If already mentioned and cited in the main body then please remove the citations - you don't need to add them in the lead. The lead is just a summary, a subset of the main body; so all the facts of the lead should be added and provided with citations in the main body.
Nearly done, only one citation remains which can be easily shifted to the main text. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is very weird that the most important facts are in the lead but not in the main body! The article looks inadequate due to this. You need to add all the info in the lead to the main body; keep only the most important facts in the lead. The lead should be proportional to the article in its size. This is the most important issue with the article.
  • In places you say "digambara" and then "Digambar". You should say "Digambara" everywhere.
Has this been done? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not notice any inconsistency in the present revision. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The word digambara is a combination of two words: Derived from which language?
I fixed it a bit more. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The word digambara is a combination of two words: dig (directions) and ambara (clothes). Those whose garments are the element that fills the four quarters of space are called digambara This could be better phrased and combined as "The word digambara is a combination of two words: dig (directions) and ambara (clothes), referring to those whose garments are of the element that fills the four quarters of space."
  • Monks in the Digambara tradition don't I have never seen "don't" in articles, better say "do not".
  • a water gourd and "gourd, and"
  • Explain or link Anga
  • taking permission of of-->from
  • Link Acharya
  • Try to keep all non-English words in italics.
Is this being done? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Done a deeper check, looks good. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • 28 vows should in fact be written as 28 vratas (vows). You are explaining vratas through vows, not vows through vratas.
  • Every Digambara monk is required to follow 28 vows (vratas) compulsory. Sounds awkward, reword like "It is mandatory for every Digambara monk to follow 28 vows (vratas)"
  • Which source covers which fact? Does ref. 13 cover all the table? Are the separate references complementary?
I have added the required references. -Nimit (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Better. Thank you जैन. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The references have been moved to the head column. These references support the content present in the rows.-Nimit (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You can see my comments at Talk:Jain monasticism/GA1 and take care of the table.
  • What is no. 24 called?
  • a cryptographic work by the digambara monk, Kumudendu Muni is not yet --> a cryptographic work by the digambara monk Kumudendu Muni, is not yet
  • In the 10th century AD or BC?
  • No intro in Lineage? There should be at least an idea about the table.
  • Source for table in Lineage?
  • Siribhoovalaya, a cryptographic work by the digambara monk, Kumudendu Muni has not yet deciphered completely.
  • In the 10th century, Digambar tradition was divided into two main orders. Source?
  • give insight about the antiquity of the Digambara tradition. Source?
  • Can you merge the sections under Historicity? And if possible expand it?
  • The single quotes should be converted to double quotes in "Scriptures"
  • Write something about the sects in "Sub-sects".

Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Good work, but looks like there was some carelessness, I have made some fixes. Please update in the GA review page, it will help me check what has been done and what has not. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Thanks for your efforts. The main trouble now is with verifiablity; some parts do not have sources. I will do the necessary copyediting. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Please pay some attention here or at least let me know if you are busy. The issues remaining need your attention now. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tried and resolved almost every issue raised here. The citation one though is not that easy one. I am trying to find sources. Any suggestions for the same? Also can you please point out the unsourced parts as I find the article cited almost everywhere. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Thanks for the update. Here are the (appearing to be) unsourced parts: Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Spiritual lineage of heads of monastic orders is known as Pattavali. (Lineage)
  • Siribhoovalaya, a cryptographic work by Kumudendu Muni (a Digambara monk), has not yet been deciphered completely.
  • The two tables. How are the sources arranged? Do they support each and every point of the tables? I need to be sure of this.
Cleanup and sourcing done. @Sainsf Please have a relook. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Capankajsmilyo, I believe this article is ready for promotion now. Great job! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yipeeee! Thanks! -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


GA removed[edit]

The article contains copyright violations. See WP:AN#Repeated Copyright Violations that spans 100s of pages. Accordingly, I have removed the very recent GA status again.

@Fram The violation you pointed have been resolved. Please restore GA. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I gave an example, not an exhaustive list of all violations you added. A sentence like "The "first" (prathma) exposition contains Digambara versions of the universal history; the "calculation" (karana) exposition contains works on cosmology; the "behaviour" (charana) exposition includes texts about proper behaviour for monks and lay people." is also a copyvio from [1]. You need to find the edits you made, check them, and correct them. Not just the examples people provide, but all of them. GA will not be restored without a full check of the article. Fram (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to resolve the ones I found. @Fram can you please have a relook. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: Instead of asking @Fram to check again and again, you need to go through line by line, reference by reference in this article, and either remove any WP:Copyvio or reword the troublesome text. You also need to clean up all instances of WP:Copyvio in all linked or related articles you have worked on, as well as all wiki articles you have edited, where you appear to have "copy-pasted" text from news articles or books, such as here (one of the links I see in ANI complaint against you). @जैन: Since you have been collaboratively helping @Capankajsmilyo to improve Jainism wiki articles, could you please help in checking and flagging/ removing/ 'rewriting in your own words' all Copyvio issues. It does not matter who did it. Clearly Jainism has long taught Asteya (non-stealing) as one of the ethical vows, and Copyvio is a form of theft; let us live up to the noble, beautiful values taught in Jainism and other Indian religions, in this and other wiki articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Capankajsmilyo, @जैन: And while you are removing Copyvio, check also if the source is really supporting the text you claim it does. For instance, on page 299 of Sangave 1980, I do not see support for "The Bhattarakas of Shravanabelagola and Mudbidri belong to Deshiya Gana and the Bhattaraka of Humbaj belongs to the Balatkara Gana". Is Humbaj etc on a different page? If you thoroughly check for Copyvio, you will catch and fix these related issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch It's little confusing. I have to write what's written in ref and still not use the words. Either I can write what's in there or use my own words. How can I do both? For eg., the terapanthi worship with ashtadrava (eight things). Now if I write that, you might say that its not in the ref whereas if I write the names of those things only then you would say that I am a copyright violator. Please help, what to do with some elaboration / explaination on the extent / limits of using the words within / beyond ref. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Capankajsmilyo: The answer is simple. Rewrite what the source states, in your own words. For example:

If the source states (I will use what @Fram flagged above): "The first (prathma) exposition contains Digambara versions of the universal history; the calculation (karana) exposition contains works on cosmology".
Wrong thing to do: Copy and pasting it. That is WP:Copyvio.
Correct thing to do: You can reword and restate the same thing in a zillion ways. First example: "The Digambara descriptions of the universal history are found in the first (prathma) exposition, while the cosmology are discussed in the calculation (karana) exposition". Second example (better IMHO): "The Digambara texts present universal history and cosmology, the former is in the first (prathma) exposition, the latter in the calculation (karana) exposition". And so on.

If you can't rewrite in your own words, stop editing wikipedia. Don't copy-paste or plagiarize text from any copyrighted source. Such behavior does not help improve this article, or other wikipedia articles, it damages it and also shows Jainism/etc in bad light. @Fram:, @Diannaa: please correct me if I am wrong. Is there a way to put @Capankajsmilyo on watch, and are there resources within wikipedia such as WP:TEAHOUSE or something that can help @Capankajsmilyo. He seems like a diligent contributor, willing to learn. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, Sarah Welch. All content we add to this wiki (other than brief quotations, where absolutely necessary) should be written in our own words. Capankajsmilyo, please read WP:copyrights and WP:plagiarism and let us know when you have done so. Please don't edit any more until you do this. Any further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)