Talk:Mahavira/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

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)

Birth place Kundapura

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!!!!

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

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

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)

New section for off-topic comments in Rfc section copy-pasted

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

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. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)" 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)

Article name: Mahavira or Mahāvīra

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)

Mahāvīra → Mahavira – '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)

• To back my support, Review of encyclopedias/dictionaries:
  • Mahavira: Merriam-Webster, Britannica, Collins English Dictionary, Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, Encyclopedia of World Biography (Vardhamana Mahavira), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, The Encyclopedia of World Religions, Holy People of the World: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Encyclopedia of Ancient Asian Civilizations (Vardhamana Mahavira), A Dictionary of World Mythology, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy
  • Mahāvīra: Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions

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.

Mahavira's dad was *the* Siddartha?

"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)

New section required

There's no mention about his samavasarana in this article. Can someone please help me with that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 23:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 23:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why ref improve tag

There's not a single cn tag on the whole article. Please clarify why tag this page with such a tag cpt.a.haddock -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved all your tags, please remove the cn template now, cpt.a.haddock -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: I don't believe the teaching section is properly cited. The (misattributed) Anekantavada sub-section reference doesn't really support what the paragraph says either; neither does the reference for his nirvana posture. There is also no reference for Pavapuri etc. Beyond your word, there is also no evidence that the infobox image is from Karauli. Anyhow, if you believe that the article is satisfactorily cited, feel free to remove the refimprove tags. I have had my fill of Jainism for the moment and withdraw.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Chyavana Section

Shoud we add the brief intro of dreams of Mother Trishala and abhishek by saudharma indra? Also I would like to know if we should shift previous births above biography. I have rearranged the article for making images appear in the appropriate section. Everything is fine except birth images which tends to go down making other images go further down due to long infobox. The solution I see is adding some content above birth. What's your view जैन? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mahāvīra or Mahavira

Restarting unresolved discussion, see Talk:Mahavira/Archive 1#Mahāvīra or Mahavira. To ensure consistency, per GA review comments, which of the two should be used in the article? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Copyvio / WP:PLAG Issues

I am reviewing the April 15 2016 version of this article. Some issues:

This article (Omniscience section): "This implies omniscience and release from earthly bondage, corresponding to the bodhi ("enlightenment") of the Buddhas."

Zimmer source: "which implies omniscience and release from earthly bondage – corresponding to the bodhi ("enlightenment") of the Buddhas."

This article (Jain Agamas section): [are said to have] "contained the most comprehensive and accurate description of every branch of learning that one needs to know.[41] The knowledge contained in these scriptures was transmitted orally by the teachers to their disciple saints."

Jain source ([41], page xi): : These scriptures "contained the most comprehensive and accurate description of every branch of learning that one needs to know. The knowledge contained in these scriptures was transmitted orally by the teachers to their disciple saints."

The above is not consistent with wikipedia's content policies. Other similar issues need to be addressed. I have not looked at the article exhaustively, nor looked at who added this content. @Fram:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @Sainsf: please reconsider the GA status of this article. @Capankajsmilyo:, @जैन: FYI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sad that I missed such a lot of copyvio. Really difficult to trace this. I am not sure if a GA reassessment would help, the issue is primarily copyvio and a re-review may not really help. No objection from my side if this article is delisted. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Both the sources are in public domain. Please recheck. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo:: Have you read WP:PLAG guideline for wikipedia content? In case you missed the third paragraph of that page, please read it again, and revise this article to comply with it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:: I have tried to fix the issues. Please check. -Nimit (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@जैन: I am glad that you in-text attributed and added the wiki required PD template for the two cases. But you or someone needs to scrub this article line by line, source by source. Have you checked every line, and are you confident that there is no more WP:Copyvio/WP:Plag issues in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

What makes you say the Zimmer source is public domain? It includes a copyright notice. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The archive.org link on the article says so. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Came here from DYK, after seeing that this nomination was held up. this link does in fact say that the source is in the public domain. However, given the other instances which have been found, I cannot see how this article can be listed as a GA until all or at least most sources have been checked. Also, there are a number of harv-errors, which I will do my best to fix. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I have corrected most reference errors, but a couple remain. Citation 27 in this version has no page number. "Charpentier1922" "Deo 1956" and "Ghatage1951" are still undefined, and a number of sources are not actually used in the text. this script makes it a lot easier to spot and correct such errors. The list is also not alphabetized, which makes it difficult to parse. Capankajsmilyo, if you want this article to remain a GA, you should address these issues soon. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Vanamonde93 and referring to the script. It is quite helpful. I have tried to resolve the issues. Please have a recheck. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The citation issues are fixed, thanks. The sources should still be alphabetized, but that is easily done. The copyvio issues (or potential copyvios issues) are harder to check; I'm not sure how much help I can be, given that I don't have access to many of the books used here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 Is it necessary to alphabetize sources? I read somewhere that sources can either be presented alphabetically or yearly. This article has shown sources yearly. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. It is actually strangely difficult to find a guideline on this; I had sort of assumed it was alphabetical, because that is academic convention. However, I did find this, which would suggest alphabetizing it; I cannot find a guideline which says that listing them by year is fine. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 I couldn't find alphabetizing guideline on the link you provided. Can you please refer it again? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

At the very top: short citations allow the full citations to be alphabetized. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, let's proceed. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Zimmer source is not public domain

Capankajsmilyo, Vanamonde93, although someone uploaded the source to archive.org in 2011 claiming that the book is now in the public domain, its copyright has not expired. The original copyright was filed in 1951, and it was renewed in 1979, meaning that the book still retains full copyright protection and will continue to do so for many years. The bibliography here says "This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." All that text must be removed, quoted (and extensive quotes should be greatly reduced since fair use guidelines will apply), or completely rewritten in your own words. This needs to be done soon; we can't keep the DYK nomination open for much longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have changed it wherever necessary, although most of it was already different from what's in source. It no longer is in violation of any copyright of Zimmer. Please check and confirm. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Marriage

Article currently [6] reads in part according to the Digambara tradition, Mahavira's parents wanted him to marry Yashoda but Mahavira refused to marry.[35] According to the Śvētāmbara tradition, he was married to Yashoda at a young age and had one daughter, Priyadarshana. However the article at Yashoda seems unrelated. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Rebirth and realms of birth

@Capankajsmilyo:, @Others: The article is slowly starting to improve, thanks to your efforts. One major weakness remains the complete silence on rebirth, better rebirth, worse rebirth, "birth realms", etc doctrines of Mahavira. This is central to understanding the significance of the five vows and Mahavira's axiology. Needs to be summarized to address the NPOV concerns. You can source this from many WP:RS, for example Naomi Appleton's Narrating Karma and Rebirth: Buddhist and Jain Multi-Life Stories, published by Cambridge University Press. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Issues and suggestions

Thank you, Capankajsmilyo for inviting me. Please look at Buddha or Jesus article to understand how an article on religious figure is handled. There should be two separate sections on his life; one according to Jain sources and one according to historical views. Here Biography section mixes both views. The sources should be mentioned in biography according to Jain texts like "Kalpasutra (Shloka 56) mentions he was born on...". There should be separate section which lists how other sources viewed him like contemporary Buddhist sources. There should be a section which lists artistic depictions including iconography. There is no need to have section temples. His teaching should be incorporated in his life according to Jain texts. I think these points will result in complete overhaul of the article. Feel free to discuss if you want to know more about any specific issue. Regards and please keep editing,--Nizil (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that there would be lack of good sources for this overhaul.--Nizil (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nizil, @Capankajsmilyo, @others: I am delighted that you have taken the FA review comments seriously, and are collaborating. I suggest you update this article by summarizing content from the publications of Paul Dundas, John Cort, Klaus Bruhn, Moriz Winternitz, Jeffery Long, and others. The version commented on by @Vanamonde93 above, did cite Winternitz, Dundas, Cort, etc already... but in the passing and ignores most of what they have written. Here are some additional sources to read and summarize. If you are unable to get hold of these, try WP:RX who may be able to help you in some cases.

• Mahavira sections, A History of Indian Literature: Buddhist literature and Jaina literature (pages 408-459)
• Mahavira and early Jainism sections, Between the Empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE (see the footnotes here, as Paul Dundas cites a treasure of WP:RS)
• A Remark on the Problem of the Date of Mahavira, Heinz Bechert
• Mahāvīra and the Buddha, A. B. Keith
• Abhidharma and Jainism, Johannes Bronkhorst
• Jainism: Mahavira section, Encyclopedia of Religious and Spiritual Development
• Jainism: Mahavira parts, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions (also see page 682)
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

If you get stuck and need more sources, leave me a message on my talk page. I will try to help. @Midnightblueowl:, @Vanamonde93: are there other wikipedia resources that can help Capankajsmilyo and others? Happy reading and summarizing, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, User:Ms Sarah Welch for pointing out refs as my main concerns were regarding avail of sources. Will look into it and do whatever can be done by me. Capankajsmilyo, please join and bring others who are interested. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jainworld.com and other websites

@Capankajsmilyo: Please avoid jainworld.com and such websites, if you wish to keep this GA or make another FA attempt. You can link useful websites in external links section if they meet ELYES guidelines. If a particular stotra or text is famous, you should easily find discussions of that text/work in peer reviewed scholarly sources and similar quality RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Anekantavada

This section needs to be better explained. It is important because it is one of the Jain doctrines that differentiate it from both Buddhism and Hinduism. The Anekantavada idea is not really pluralism, it is far more sophisticated and nuanced. It is its details that created controversy and disputes about it in the historic Buddhist and Vedanta texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Dating clarification

The statements about dating of Mahavira have become confusing. We don't have any names on scholars who have dated Mahavira anymore. Ms Sarah Welch, would you please help in this? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Sitush, Nizil Shah, Utcursch. Further, the sources cited in Jain biography against 599 BC like Doniger, Upinder Singh, etc. doesn't mention it to be traditional dating. Does that mean it's historical? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't help with this one, sorry. I'm afraid my eyes glaze over when I see Ms Sarah Welch is involved: complicated stuff just seems to get more complicated. My fault, probably. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: If you read the Doniger article all the way, not just the first para, she does mention the dating is per the tradition. See the last para, for example. Please use "diff" in future, before you allege "don't have any names.... anymore". It wasn't there when I recently reviewed this article (before my edit). I don't know what you are referring to when you are allegedly implying as if "names of scholars" was there! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not "alleging" anything. I just feel that it should have some names, ample of which are given in KC Jain's - Lord Mahavira's and his times. If the word anymore led to misunderstanding, I take that back. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

See this, Pg 73-88. It's too elaborate, I don't know how to summarise it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Diffs are always a good idea, when you allege "X is not in the article anymore". "Anymore" implies the article had it, now it doesn't. I see the tags you added to the lead. The GA/FA articles need not have cites in the lead. The lead is a summary of the main. I suggest you carefully read the main article and the cited sources therein, then ask if "5th century BCE" etc is supported or not in Dundas, Marty etc? FWIW, 425 or 405 BCE is obviously 5th-century BCE! See Kristi Wiley's publications on Jainism as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess the position of cn tag made you believe that. Never mind, I have repositioned the tag to specific word and added 6th-century too as some historians date him to be so. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: I am disappointed that in your watch and active editing of this article, the article has been misrepresenting the sources. The Charles Taliaferro and Elsa J. Marty source states 497 to 425 BCE, but the version you developed and nominated for FA stated 480 to 408 BCE in the Birth subsection! Please do check the sources, line by line. Given the Copyvio problems in the past, and these sort of systematic errors, I hesitate in working further on this and any Jainism-related articles. I urge you rapidly check each source and each line, fix such problems, or nominate this article to be removed from its GA status. @Vanamonde93: please note, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what I missed. Will try and see again. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo, Please go through line by line, cite by cite and scrub this article out. Others and I can help you with your FA efforts only if we witness an eagerness for FA quality, not for FA awards. The quality of the effort and the accuracy in summarizing the sources should shine through on its own. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Your FA-nominated version, and the article currently states "title Jīnā ("the victor or conqueror of inner enemies such as attachment, pride and greed"), which later became synonymous with Tirthankara." It cites Zimmer, p. 223 for support. I do not see this supported there, and the source just states Jina (the "Victor"). Do you see this supported on that page or elsewhere in Zimmer? If yes, where? If no, please revise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Death in tradition

Using the word death in historical section is ok, but no Jain tradition ever accepted that he died. Is that a suitable title? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: As two editors during the FA-review rejection observed, this is wikipedia, and this article should not be "blatantly written from the perspective of a practicing Jain" sect. An encyclopedic article should not "uncritically repeat Jain beliefs and mythology" and "make heavy use of Jain terminology", or fail to "step away from the POV of a believer". I too am really concerned about these issues in this article, as well this article's quality, the long and continued failure of active editors of this article to fix the misrepresentation of sources in this article, and whether the last GA review missed all this or editors since then have highjacked it into a non-GA article! Please read the scholarly sources, and they do use the word "died" or equivalent, while discussing the Jain texts and tradition! Also see WP:EUPHEMISM. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tag after the Paryushana sentence

The clarification needed tag at the end of the Birth section states see Dalal, p=284 etc. I looked at two books by Dalal, but nothing on their page 284. Which Dalal source is this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Link -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Serious neutrality issues

I've re-added the neutrality tag to this article; it should not be removed until the issue at hand is satisfactorily resolved. As both myself and Vanamonde highlighted when this article was nominated at FAC, there are some very serious problems at play here. For me, the main issue is that it is blatantly written from the perspective of a practicing Jain. Mythology without basis in historical scholarship is presented as if it were fact. This might make a fantastic article in a Jain encyclopaedia written for Jains, but it is not appropriate for the purposes of Wikipedia. As I see it, the only way that this can be accomplished is for the article to undergo a thorough restructuring by editors with an interest and knowledge of Jainism but who are not practitioners of the religion in question. Until that happens, the tag must stay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with Midnightblueowl's description of the issues here. I don't think they are necessarily insoluble by a practitioner; but anybody who wants to bring this up to a high standard will have to set aside their own POV, and work with the scholarly sources that are available. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If you highlight some specific issues, that would be of help. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Midnightblueowl and Vanamonde93. @Capankajsmilyo: There is enough specificity in Midnightblueowl's explanation. You or someone should go line by line, and address Midnightblueowl's concerns. If the NPOV issue is not addressed in coming weeks, we should reconsider the GA status for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl:, @Vanamonde93: I have completed a major cleanup of the main article, fixed numerous misrepresentations of sources, added summary from peer reviewed scholarship and publications by non-Jains. I have also added contentious issues/ideas attributed to Mahavira, plus summaries from various sides on these. The article is much bigger now, with far more scholarly non-Jain sources. Please have another look. Next week, I suggest we remove the POV tag. The article is still not anywhere ready for an FA review. It needs a once-through thorough check, expansion of the festivals section, copyediting by GOCE, and some rethinking on the images, layout, etc. The article also needs to be stable for a while. I suggest we postpone any re-nom for FA review by at least 3-6 months. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Well done on your hard work, Ms Sarah Welch. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Non historic facts

His cremation, his wandering throughout the subcontinent, and even his teachings are non-historic facts. Is there archaeological evidence for any of it? If not, then the entire second paragraph in the introduction must be stated to be according to Jain tradition. -Jenishc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.163 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahavira. 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/20150916101903/https://books.google.co.in/books?id=xI8HBgAAQBAJ to https://books.google.co.in/books?id=xI8HBgAAQBAJ

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Rm Paul Dundas observation

I have removed this content from the article: “According to Paul Dundas, a professor of Sanskrit known for his publications on Jainism, the earliest layer of Jain literature such as the Acaranga Sutra mentions neither Vardhamana nor Mahavira, nor any equivalent of "fordmaker". Also, according to Dundas, the term Jina is rare in early Jain texts.”

Reason: These observations made by Paul doesn’t hold any merit. They are completely wrong. First, the author, considers the scriptures of only one sect. Only if he had studied some of the oldest scriptures of another sect- Digambaras, he wouldn’t have made such observations. Second as the oldest scriptures (Kasayapahuda and Shatkhandagama) are in Prakrit language, a sanskrit scholar’s statement that oldest Jain texts doesn’t mention the name Vardhamana or Mahavira need verification by a Prakrit scholar. If any scholar of Prakrit language and Jainology say such things than he/she can be considered. Even though, these scriptures do mention these names and not at one or two but at several places. The word Jina has been used in oldest of Jain texts but because in Prakrit ण is used instead of न , we seen the word जिण which means the same as जिन in sanskrit. -Nimit (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Change the title from Mahavira to Mahavira Swami

Change the title Rishabh.rsd (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Swami is an honorific, and as such is not used in the title of the article, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing full citation

The short citation "Pannalal Jain 2015, p. 460." does not link to a full citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Where is the anti-idol stuff

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

Page not found. provide reference to any scriptures if possible.... Rishabh.rsd (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lord Mahavira's Kevalgyana Kalyanaka.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

S.s.t

Teaching of Mahavira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:4462:78FB:2D80:C4A7:FCE:4B92 (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Teachings section

The teachings section is offensive as written. They are two very different beliefs (period). Sentences about some scholars initially thinking they were not and other scholars later thinking they were different is appropriate in some kind of "history of western mistakes" article, not here. Anyone with significant knowledge of the teachings of Jainism and Buddhism can see they are different. In my view, more different than Islam and Christianity. (Even though the practices of Buddhism and Jainism are more similar to each other, the beliefs are different). 2600:6C5D:5B00:1AC0:661E:E334:47DD:DA49 (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Mahaveer swami kshetrpal

Mahaveer swami kshetrpal 223.228.14.110 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge Jivantasvami here

I suggest to merge Jivantasvami into this article since there is not much content available for this subtopic. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Mahavira is a biography etc, but Jivantasvami is about a particular iconography used for images of Mahavira (mostly) but also other figures, as the article explains. Jivantasvami is perfectly long enough (4.5k raw bytes), indeed probably too long to merge into an already large Mahavira. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop squabbling

Without adding more - there is really need to follow manavirvani and stop squabbling by getting into revert wars. Chirag (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)