Jump to content

Talk:Rishabhanatha/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Addition of unsourced content

A lot of unsourced material was restored recently, along with removal of sourced content (which I reverted). I request other editors to provide citation for them. The direct quotations in the sections "Descriptions from Jain Texts" and "References in Hinduism" needs immediate attention, since they clearly seem original research. Also of importance is to cite references for the sections "Famous temples dedicated to Rishabha" and "Archaeology: Notable Pratimas of Rishabha" of high quality enough to demonstrate their notability.

The whole section "Description in Jain Texts" is completely unsourced. It presents the information in a story-like way. I would be more than happy to help correct the prose, however, they should first be referenced with good quality published sources. This article is about a person who is believed by almost all the Jains to be founder of Jainism, so it is of vital importance that the contents be sourced and presented in a neutral way. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am being dragged in Jainism articles only because there is no one to monitor your edits. Refs will be given in due time but you just discarded one ref claiming unreliable. Has that site made up sanskrit shloka? We should apply commonsense. You can keep reverting my edits and removing contents but I will restore present version with single edit if I see illegitimate edits. There was a time when you had unobstructed run on wikipedia. That time is gone. neo (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
jaindharmonline.com is unreliable because it seems like a self published source. If you can demonstrate the reliability of that source, I have no problem in keeping the content. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Info in article keeps jumping here and there. Article should be divided in sections in chronological order. (1) Early life (2) As a ruler (3) Ascetic life and awakening (4) Later life (5) Teachings. I can't do it from mobile easily. Can you do it? And don't worry about "reliable sources" stuff at this moment. If contents are encyclopedic and non-controversial, you should tag them with 'cn'. My primary concern is that 90% of time you keep removing contents from various articles instead of adding contents. Sometime you remove valid infoboxes, cats, templates etc which are must for articles to be encyclopedic. I will not interfare for few days. Hope that you rearrange and expand article in encyclopedic way. Otherwise I will have to study this subject in which I have no interest. neo (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Do not derail the conversation. Please explain how jaindharmaonline.com is a reliable source. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I said that info in article keep jumping here and there. You can rearrange article in chronological order. During this effort you may have to remove some unencyclopedic and controversial contents. But you should try to expand article with your own contents. The text in question may not fit anywhere after rearrangement. So arguing about 'reliable source' is irrelevant. You trimmed Jainism article by removing half contents. You seldom added contents. Then you took help of other users to promote it to GA. Ahimsa in Jainism was already meeting good article criteria and after minor tweaks it was promoted. Here is chance to prove yourself that you are good editor and don't take credit of others' work. You will have to improve this article from scratch. As I told, I will not interfare... for 1 month. That means I won't edit article or argue/complain/suggest on this talkpage or anywhere on wikipedia. If I see you improving and expanding this article to more than 40 kb to meet good article criteria, then I will take back all my complaints regarding all of your previous history and I will apologize for doubting your integrity as wikipedia editor. OK? neo (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I found the source, it was Muni, Amar (1985). Illustrated Tirthankara Charitra. Mathura: Padam Prakashan.. I have deleted the content. It seems copyright violation. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/Books/TIRTHANK.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Bhaktamara Stotra

It should stay on this page as Acharya Manatunga composed Bhaktamara Stotra praying to Rishabhadev. If literature is not the suitable section, we can change the section but this line should not be deleted. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 08:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the most basic Wikipedia skill: adding material with cites. You can't just add things because. That's not how it works and if you can't understand that, revisit the Teahouse until you understand the rules. Now self-revert or provide a reliable source immediately. Ogress smash! 08:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sources? I already linked the relevant wikipedia pages stating the fact.-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 08:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Added the first eight shlokas of the bhakatamara itself as reference for your satisfaction. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilisation

According to historians like Dr. Vilas Sangave, Heinrich Zimmer and Thomas McEvilley, the seals found in excavations of Indus Valley Civilization, showing Kayotsarga posture of a nude ascetic and a Bull depicts Lord Rishabha suggesting that he was worshiped by the then community.[1]

Ogress (talk · contribs)Now what is the problem in language of the line stated above? I have reframed to present the neutral point of view -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sangave 2001, p. 108.

Images not spam

How are the images spam TheRedPenOfDoom? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

they are repetitive without providing context or meaning or other encyclopedic value, merely distracting filler. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
cluttering the side bar with redundant and non informative images doesnt make it any less spammy, just more like a bad myspace page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Cluttering? It's showing perfectly on my smartphone. It's the the relevant section not sidebar. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
You have 15 pictures in an article that is less than 20 paragraphs long and many of the paragraphs are a single sentence long. that is WAY too many images. 03:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Etymology?

That's not an etymology. It's just a list of names.Caeruleancentaur (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Rishabhanatha. The most compelling evidence is in favour of this title. Jenks24 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


Rishabha → Adinatha – Rishabha is not the name. It's either vrishabhanatha or Adinatha -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the general Wikipedia editing community is going to need more information than what you've provided to make an educated decision. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually vrishabha (Sanskrit) means bull and Riṣabhanath or Riṣabha Deva is the name given to first tirthankara (perhaps derived from vrishabhanath, bull being the emblem). So, current name Rishabha is not correct. The name should either be Adinatha or Riṣabhanatha or Riṣabha Deva.
  • If you see the List of the 24 tirthankaras, you will find that name of 21 out of 24 tirthankaras end with nath.
  • Also, in Hindi language, the name is ऋषभनाथ (Riṣabhanatha) or ऋषभदेव (Riṣabha Deva) or आदिनाथ (Adinatha)
  • Major shrines and temples goes by the name Adinatha, see following categories and images:

Category at commons: Interior of Adinath Temple, Ranakpur Category at commons: Adinath Jain Temple Khajuraho

Regard,-जैन (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support renaming from Rishabha, however should it be Rishabhanatha, rather than Adinatha? Britannica calls Rishabhanath [1].--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I checked the proposed names on google and the result was as this. Adinatha got 1,07,000, while Rishabhanatha and Vrishabhanatha got 3,690 and 521 results respectively. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Don’t know what and how you Googled. But "Adinatha" on Google gave me 1,04,000. But I don’t trust such Googlehits as they are faulty. For example over here, 4th output is "Aditya Adinatha Profiles on Facebook" and fifth is "Bagus Adinatha Profiles on Facebook". Also, if you see the disambiguation page of Adinath lists many other entries which might be included in this Google search. Redtigerxyz's rationale for "Rishabhanatha" seems better than this weakly based argument of googlehits. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 08:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


Let's get this started. Generally speaking, on a first look-over, I see two big problems: Some uncited text in the "Legends" and "Birth" section, and way too many images. There's four separate galleries in this article, as well as numerous side images. Choose the best examples of each type, or expand the article to justify it more. For example, if you discuss the monolithic statues, you can easily justify more images of them, and will have space to include them.

But some of the images are going to need to go whatever's done; I'd suggest starting with the ones that don't thumbnail as well, the ones that are most similar to other images, and ones that give the same information as other images. Try to eliminate some of the galleries.

Sources used seem good; I can't readily check them.

As I said, I'm nto an expert in this. Since he apparently appears in Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, though, I think we need a discussion of how his depiction varies from Jain texts. If it does. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to resolve the issues raised by you. Please have a look again and let me know what else needs to be done. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. I think it still needs more on Hindu and Buddhist depictions for comprehensiveness - basically, an expansion of In literature, though, if how he's depicted in those religions vary, you should say how where relevant immediately after the Jain description.
  2. In Founding of Jainism:
    1. The sentence "Twenty-four Tīrthaṅkaras grace this part of the universe in duşamā-suşamā (read as dukhmā-sukhmā) ara of both halves." doesn't appear to make sense. Amongst other things, "grace" is an odd verb choice, "duşamā-suşamā" isn't explained, there's no detailing of how the universe is divided, etc.  Half done (Still uses "grace", but it's a lot clearer)
    2. "The institution of marriage came into existence after he married to set an example for other humans to follow." might benefit by saying "is said to have come". I think it reads a bit more encyclopedically if we keep just slightly detached when depiicting Jain beliefs.  Done
    3. "In total, Rishabhanatha is said to have taught seventy-two sciences which include: arithmetic, the plastic and visual arts, the art of lovemaking, singing and dancing." I'd be inclined to name all seventy-two. It'd be listy, but I think it'd be more informative. You can do it in a sidebar, in a pinch.
    4. "Ṛṣabhanātha is said to be the founder of Jainism in the present half cycle" - I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean Jainism will need refounded in the next half cycle, or?
  3. In Legends, not counting the subsections:
    1. "Ādi purāṇa, a major Jain text records the life accounts of Rishabhanatha as well as ten previous lives." - Firstly, I think we need more of a description of the text. Secondly, is "ten previous lives" meant to imply reincarnation, or just to say that there are other people depicted?
    2. "Rishabhanatha is associated with his Bull emblem, the Nyagrodha tree, Gomukha (bull-faced) Yaksha, and Chakresvari Yakshi" - Please give more description of each of these. What is a Bull emblem, what is a Yaksha, what is Chakresvari Yakshi?
  4. In Birth, the sentence "Garbha kalyanaka is the first auspicious event out of five auspicious events (Panch Kalyanaka)" doesn't really give enough context for where the idea of five auspicious events is coming from.
  5. In Kingdom:
    1. I think we'd better change "and was one of the greatest initiators of human progress" to "and is said to have been one of the greatest initiators of human progress". Again, a slight detachment makes it more encyclopedic.
    2. Lakh is just defined as 100,000 on the linked page. As such, the sentence "Rishabhanatha is said to have lived for 84 lakh (pūrva) of which 20 lakh pūrva were spent as a youth (kumāra kāla), and 63 lakh pūrva as the King (rājya kāla)." does not make sense. 84 lakh of WHAT? Does pūrva have a meaning, despite being put in parentheses after "lakh" the first time? And are the terms actually necessary to use? "two million" is more accessible than "20 lakh".
  6. In Renunciation
    1. I don't suppose there's another term that could be used for the title of this section? Or maybe "Renunciation of the world" or some phrasing in that line? Because "Renunciation" can also be used for giving up a religion, indeed, is more commonly used for that in Western religions, and as such, it's a little confusing until explained.
    2. "Indra of the first heaven" could use a little more introduction, if possible. Also, what is the "first heaven"?
  7. In Akshaya Tritiya, define "Akshaya Tritiya" before going on to any other facts about it. Also define "Digambara monks".
  8. In Omniscience, "the following is the number of followers" is a little awkward of phrasing; using two words based on "follow", but with very different meanings is awkward. Also, "lakh" again; see above for the problems with this.
  9. Briefly describe the contents of each text in "In literature".
  10. In "Iconography", give a brief description of "abhisheka"
  11. Briefly discuss the colossal statues and temples.

That's a long list, I know, but that should get everything, subject to any issues with the edited text. I think this will also be most of the way to featured article once it's done, and I'd suggest a peer review be started once it reaches GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, Capankajsmilyo, where does this review stand? I see that there have been two series of edits by Capankajsmilyo in mid- and late December, after the most recent comments here, but no indication from Capankajsmilyo of which of the issues noted by Adam Cuerden have been addressed. Thanks for any updating you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's been another two months without any comment from the reviewer (now over three months), and Capankajsmilyo has addressed the issues (per user talk page) in those edits. This nomination is going back into the pool to find a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2017 (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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ThatGirlTayler (talk · contribs) 00:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


I will be reviewing this article to ensure that it meets the GA guidelines. ThatGirlTayler (talk)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Article is written in a way that readers would need special inside knowledge to understand. It seems like it isn't written with everyday readers in mind. Such as: This cycle will start reversing at the onset of utsarpinī kāl with the Dukhama-dukhamā ara being the first ara of utsarpinī (half-time cycle of regeneration). The chronology bit about Jainism and Rishabhanatha is also pretty vague and needs to be changed. Thanks, BlueMoonset for your input. Final sentence needs to be fixed, pick an actual number instead of saying "thousands of years"{GAList/check|{{{1a}}}}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Sections are too brief and should be lengthened to match GA guidelines. Numbering of lists is too inconsistent, pick one numbering system. Also, the use of invalid dashes needs to be fixed there is no such thing as "nine-thousand" it should just be "nine thousand".
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Yes
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Yes
    C. It contains no original research: Yes
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: all text including images match copyright guidelines.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: I would like to see more with Buddhism and Rishabhantha outside of Jainism, but overrall pretty good.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Definitely
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Yes.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Very stable.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Images all for within free to use guidelines.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: All images have captions and fit within the scope of the article, if anything there are too many pictures.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: pass. All edits to article within the last week have improved the article greatly and have brought it up to GA-quality. Congratulations, Capankajsmilyo
Thanks for starting the GA ThatGirlTayler, I have addressed all the issues raised by you. Please have a relook. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: I would just like some clarification, first. What is a half cycle of present time? Is it 500 years? 1000 years? Etc. I just think it would be confusing to the reader if they do not know what a "half cycle" is.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That can't be measured in years. Sagaropam is the unit used for its calculation. Further details on this topic has been wikilink in the article via Jain cosmology. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from others

I don't see how the article meets the guideline for lead sections. In particular, this does not summarize all of the main sections of the body of the article, and is quite brief. While the guideline does indicate one to two paragraphs for an article of this length, what is here is extremely short; there needs to be more content.

A GA review needs to be more specific: if there are grammar and sentence structure issues, the reviewer needs to give at least some examples of the issues found.

When I read the article, I find some of the text to be extremely opaque, and to me it seems to be written for a specialist or believer rather than an everyday reader. One sentence that epitomizes this is This cycle will start reversing at the onset of utsarpinī kāl with the Dukhama-dukhamā ara being the first ara of utsarpinī (half-time cycle of regeneration). As one of the GA criteria is that the prose is "clear and concise", this fails clarity by a wide margin. Later in that section is this: Jain chronology places the date of Rishabhanatha at an almost immeasurable antiquity in the past. This is extremely vague. Are we talking thousands of years? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Billions? Trillions? More? The article needs to give the reader a true idea of this.

I was puzzled by the inconsistent use of numbers in words and digits at the beginning of entries in the Omniscience subsection's list. This should certainly be consistent when in a list—all digits, or all words; at present, many of the written-out numbers have invalid dashes in them (for example, nine-thousand). There's also something wrong with the final sentence's 1 lakh pūrva less thousand years; I'd suggest giving this as an actual number that a modern person can understand, since "lakh pūrva" has not been defined and is not wikilinked. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess the issues raised have been resolved. Please give it a look. Actual number can't be given since it would be more than 10^219. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have issues with the entire tone of the article. It blends mythology, such as enormous time scales, with a history of Rishabhanatha as if he were a real person who performed both ordinary and extraordinary deeds, and apparently never died . If he was the founder of Jainism, is there any evidence that he was a historical personage? Or is this entire article mythology? The word "myth" is not in the article. As a "god" of Jainism, the article should approach him with the same POV as other deities, i. e. "[this source] says", "in most traditions", "he is depicted as", "some scholars propose", etc. Contrast this with the tone of the article about Buddha, who clearly has mythology surrounding his life, yet was a historical person, and, for instance, the article about Indra, a deity. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Eric

Issues with this article, explaining the POV tag

Just like two editors noted during the FA-review of Mahavira, this article too should not be "blatantly written from the perspective of a practicing Jain". 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". The article is written in a style that pushes the view that Rishabhanatha was a historic figure, and the article is not presenting the views of mainstream peer reviewed scholarship. This article is weak, needs a serious review, and a thorough revision. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I fail to see what you are talking about, but you are always welcome to nominate the article for good article reassessment. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@SparklingPessimist: I have been revising the article. The version I was referring to is this one. Read the April 25 2017 comment in GA2 review in section above. Yes indeed, the GA re-assessment is an option. Revising the article, however, is more pressing. I am working on it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing source

@Capankajsmilyo: You added Bhatt & Bhargava 2006, p. 479 source for Bawangaja, but the details of this source are missing in the sources section. Please fix. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Kalpaz is SPS. Please do not use it in future in this article or anywhere in wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
OK -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Stating who the author is, and why their opinion matters in GA article

@BlueMoonset: given your extended experience with GA process and reviews, would you please confirm the importance of stating who the author is, and why their opinion matters in a GA-level article? At least once, when a name first appears with "According to XYX,...." or such. I ask because someone has lately been repeat deleting this information entirely (among other things) from this GA article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Venerated in field

@Capankajsmilyo: You added this field to this article. Did you add it to the infobox? Have you discussed it or gained consensus from wikipedia community? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I did add it. I saw the opposition recently. What are your opinions on this field? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The revert warring by @Jenishc suggests that they are upset with it for some reason. You added it. Could you explain why you think it is justified, and request @Jenishc to explain why it isn't? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The venerated in is "self-evident" and not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenishc (talk • contribs) 12:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It may be "self evident" to you, or to a practicing Jain, or to persons with knowledge about Indian religions. But wikipedia readers come from various backgrounds who may not find it self evident. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Ms Sarah Welch on this. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It is "self-evident" because it is mentioned in the first line of the article that he's a Tirthankar in Jainism. It is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenishc (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverts to unsourced and fringe partisan sources

@Jenishc: Please see the comments above on April 25 by someone else, then my me, and also by two admins relating to Jainism articles here. You changed back to "millions of years" supported by the sources, to the vague "innumerable" years. You added back "Digamabara monk", without source. Such form of POV-y editing is disruptive. Have you really checked the sources carefully? Most were non-RS WP:SPS, much content failed verification and old content was gross misrepresentation of the sources. Further, we must also check if the source are WP:QUESTIONABLE. The information about the author / scholar is important in GA quality articles, and it is inappropriate for you to remove such information. Fringe claims such as "Teaching God" do not belong in this article, per WP:FRINGE, because this is not what the mainstream sources state. The term God, with capital G, connotes a specific monotheistic concept in English. We need to check multiple mainstream peer reviewed sources, before we add such claims. Please discuss your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: - an Indian religion - not required. - Why did you revert the number of years that equals a purva? Millions of years is *equally* vague as innumerable years. I am changing it at present to remote antiquity in the past. The phrase "purva" years does not mean anything, since purva is already a unit of time. - I have read everything by all reviewers. The problem is, for mythical figures who's historicity is impossible to verify, you cannot do better. For example, see the article on Zeus. - "Digambara monk": Without source? What do you mean by a source? If some European author suddenly mentions something then it becomes a source, but a million people and texts (like Adi Purana) stating it becomes invalid? I've added the phrase according to Digambar beliefs. - Adi Purana is as mythical as the Mahabharata. Changing that. - You've changed the introduction. Why? - I disagree with the way you are adding scholarship. I have a Phd, so if i write a book tomorrow, it suddenly becomes a valid source? - I would like to dispute various things in this article. How do i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenishc (talk • contribs)
@Jenishc: We stick with what the reliable source(s) is stating, per WP:V and WP:RS guidelines! If the RS states 8,400,000 purva years, we state the same. If you wish to clarify "purva" from another source, we can add a refn note. But no original research nor changing what the source is stating. A source's reliability depends on a number of factors such as whether it is peer reviewed etc. Blogs, self published sources, etc are not acceptable. Read the reliable sources guidelines, as this talk page is not meant to educate you about wikipedia policies. Take it to WP:TEAHOUSE if you need clarifications, or to WP:DRN if you think you understand the policies and wish to dispute something. However, at this stage I recommend the former, and then more discussion on this talk page after you get clarifications. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I read everything, nothing different from what i was aware of. For another thing, why are you mindlessly undoing the changes that i am making? Please reply systematically and specifically to the changes that you undo, instead of using blanket terms like "unconstructive". I'll come back and change it again. Jenishc (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me or others of "mindless" changes. See WP:CIVIL. See my explanation above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have removed "remote antiquity", because it is not supported by RS, and because it can imply "3,000 years" or "4,000 years" to those unaware of Indian time scales. "Millions of years" is a different order of magnitude, not exact, but clarifies that the texts are not talking about 10,000 or 50,000 years or even something along the lines of conventional human history and the theories on human migrations from Africa some 70,000 years ago. We should stick with what the sources state. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Age of Rishabha

Jenishc: The (592.704 x 10^18 years) is unsourced and not supported in peer-reviewed RS or mainstream sources. Such addition of unsourced content is inappropriate per WP:V policy, and not okay in articles rated to be of GA quality. Your other edits are similarly inappropriate and the edit comments, some in all caps, do not make sense. The article did not claim, for example, Wiley is a "professor", it only stated she is a "scholar", yet your edit summary incorrectly alleges it did. Strange. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

JenishC: Page 444 of Sarasvati states the same 8,400,000 purva years. Page 417 is a generic discussion of "purva", which is not same as a purva year, nor does the page 417 discuss age of Rishabha. It is page 444 which does. Two more sources confirm this. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS guideline, which states "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". So the old (592.704 x 10^18 years) that you keep edit warring over remains unsourced, and three sources are all saying 8.4 million purva years. We must stick to summarizing what the multiple sources are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Before Saraswati begins discussing Jain beliefs, he states all the units of time and then space, and mentions that 1 purva = 84 lakh * 84 lakh (calculated) on page 417. On page 444, so that there is no confusion as to what he means by a purva, he says that "and the division of time as described above should be applied to what follows". It is thoroughly and completely clear what is meant by purva, and very conclusively stated therein. It is like a math textbook saying that 1 dozen = 12, and then saying 500 dozen years. It is a purely mathematical fact and not open to interpretation. I am changing it back. If you have a problem, lets get independent persons to decide what is the case, since you are not the final authority on anything. -Jenishc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.162 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
JenishC will have to be patient and wait until their block expires. It was only a 24-hour block, but I've extended it to 2-weeks due to the block evasion (unacceptable), and semi-protected the page due to the continued edit warring (also unacceptable). As for the content, is it really SYNTH if we already know the length of time of purva? Isn't it then just an arithmetical extrapolation? Though I'm not sure how useful 592.704 x 10^18 years is to the reader. El_C 06:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Jenishc is inadvertently misreading the source or doing OR. A "purva" =/= "year". In historic Indian texts, days make a month, months make a year, years make a purva, so on. Now, lets look at page 417.
Quote: (...skip...) 2 fortnights make 1 month; 12 months make 1 year; 70 lac crores, 56 thousand crores of such years make 1 purva or cycle, (...skip..)
So, a purva year or purva month or purva fortnight or purva day is just a year /month / fortnight / day of that purva. But the obvious question then is why not just say "year" or "day" etc! Because, in some versions of the Buddhist/Jain/Hindu cosmology and mythology, there are many more parallel cycles. Each loka or realm of existence (heavens, earth, etc) has its own parallel cycle. For example, they have a Brahma year where one Brahma year equals billions of human years! It would be wrong to interpret, or synthetically start showing off our math skills, to state in this article more than what the source is stating. Second issue here is that the Saraswati source is very old, raising HISTRS issues; Thirdly, it is also a borderline fringe polemic against Jainism and everyone else from a minority sect within Hinduism. This 1908 translation is not the kind of independent, scholarly reliable source preferable for an encyclopedic article. If you look at the other sources (two cited in this article), they are better, and they too leave it as 8.4 million purva years. So should this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Additional note: Jain manuscripts are not consistent on this. Some give higher, some lower numbers. In some Indian texts, purva is interpreted as "previous", in some as just a measure of cyclic time. Recent scholarship states (p. 150) Rishabha's age in just "Purva years". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I completely and thoroughly disagree with everything. You are only trying to obfuscate a point that is completely clear. (1) "So, a purva year or purva month or purva fortnight or purva day is just a year /month / fortnight / day of that purva" - NO. This is not the case. A purva is simple a unit of measure. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement if you've never seen something like this. (2) "in some versions of the Buddhist/Jain/Hindu cosmology and mythology, there are many more parallel cycles" - This is your interpretation of things, in Jain Cosmology there are definitely no parallel cycles. A "loka" has a meaning much different from what you stated. (3) Also, this is a simple point, something that a middle-school kid could do, it does not require any real math skill. (4) Further, the Kalpa Sutra you linked is a *TRANSLATED VERSION* and not the original. ALL jain *ORIGINAL* sources agree on the definition of a purva. Actually it is so simple that it does not even require any discussion. (5) "This 1908 translation is not the kind of independent, scholarly reliable source preferable for an encyclopedic article" - Disagree. This is only your particular opinion. Dayanand Saraswati was a renowned writer, scholar and philosopher, and your lack of awareness of him cannot be enforced on an article. If you have any *reasonable* problem with the age in years, state it, none of your claims have any substance so far. -JenishC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.40.12 (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@131.215.220.162 / @206.117.40.12/ hopping IP: We try to summarize the "external" reliable publications. Wikipedia articles are not acceptable cites in other wikipedia articles. All four sources state the same 8.4 million purva years, of which 3 are already cited in this article, one source linked above is quite recent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Btw, I've also semiprotected the talk page after JenishC second block evasion. El_C 02:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Rishabha in Yajurveda and Bhagvata Purana

The Yajurveda mentions the name of three Tirthankaras – Rishabha, Ajitanatha and Arishtanemi, states Radhakrishnan, and "the Bhāgavata Purāṇa endorses the view that Rishabha was the founder of Jainism".

I doubt this claim because next text clarifies that Rishabha may have been used in some other meaning." :However, the context in the Rigveda, Atharvaveda and the Upanishads suggests that it means the bull, sometimes "any male animal" or "most excellent of any kind", or "a kind of medicinal plant"."
Can someone check modern translations and scholarly study of Yajurveda and Bhagvata Purana to support Radhakrishnan's claims? If modern study does not endorse his claim, we should not include it here, in my opinion. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Strange number

"According to Jain cosmology, the 10^1631 （16,310,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000） does not have a temporal beginning or end."

1) I don't know what this sentence is trying to convey.

2) 10^1631 is not the number shown in parentheses.

3) The number is mentioned a second time as being how long ago Rishabhanatha lived, which contradicts the beginning of the article saying millions of years ago.

4) The second mention cites sources 7 and 22. Source 7 just says millions of years ago, source 22 is cited for page xv, which doesn't exist, and I couldn't find any mention of 10^1631 on page 15 or chapter XV.

Where does the number 10^1631 come from?

138.253.95.201 (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge Rishabha Hinduism

I propose to merge Rishabha (Hinduism) into a section of this article since it is just a Hindu adaptation of Jain tirthankara. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 15:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Retain separate similar to Gautama Buddha in Hinduism.--Redtigerxyz Talk 09:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think them to be comparable. Buddha is mentioned extensively in Hinudism and has sufficient content on the page. But Rishabha has a much brief mention and the page I have mentioned above is evident of that fact. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 17:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Merge Both are one and the same mythological figure. The article Rishabha (Hinduism) cites Dr. Radhakrishnan, and his views also linked him as the founder of Jainism. Moreover, even if there are contrary views, it can be included as a section in the main article. Neurofreak (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rishabhanatha/Archive_1&oldid=1156902825"