Talk:Rishabha (Hinduism)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rishabha (Hinduism) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal 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.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correct Spelling[edit]

I think name should be spelt as Rishabha. Subramanya 09:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Para[edit]

Srimad Bhagavatam doesn't say s**t about Jainism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.155.66 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabha: avatar of Vishnu[edit]

In the Bhagavata Purana (in particular canto) that is quoted, Krishna as the source of all avatars is described, as such Rishabha is also described as Krishna. But in list of avatars of Vishnu, Rishabha is also mentioned. These books explicitly mention rishabha as an avatar of Vishnu. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more reliable sources (including John Muir (indologist)) that support Rishabha as an incarnation of Vishnu.[10][11][12] Priyanath ^talk 05:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabha (hindu sage) and Rishabha (Jain tirthankar)[edit]

Should those two articles be merged? Read them. They just seem to be two views (Hindu and Jain) of the same person, which would make them POV forks. Priyanath ^talk 05:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article can be built as a sub-article of Rishabha the tirthankar on the lines of Gautama Buddha in Hinduism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Red, that this page can be justified as a stand alone page and include details that would be undue in the Jain article. That said this page does need to be renamed to correct the capitalization: any prefrence among Rishabha (Hinduism) and Rishabha (Hindu sage). I prefer the former since Rishabha was not only a sage (also a king, avatar etc), but don't mind either. Abecedare (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabha (Hinduism) would be best, for the reasons you explain. Priyanath ^talk 05:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Abecedare (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unencyclopaedic and poor quality content from the page.[edit]

I removed some paragraphs from the articles which were not relaible and poorly sourced, contained original research. If you have any problem then kindly discuss the issue here.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]