Talk:Parshvanatha

Edit Talk

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

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

---

GA Review

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

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

Opening statement

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

Style

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

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

Jain biography

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

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

Colossal statues

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

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

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

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

Status query

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

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

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

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

historicity

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

Image of the Subject

Kindly discuss before making disruptive edits to the article. An edit war does not help anyone. The existing image of the idol at Shankheshwara, Patan is clear enough and meets MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. The picture of the icon at Ellora caves is not clear enough and has irrelevant noise. ParvatPrakash (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Images in Iconography Section

Greetings @Livingstonshr If you do not agree with an image in a particular section, you cannot just remove it without consensus on the talk page. If it depicts the subject in a clear enough manner, the image does not need removal. If you think it has bias, try to neutralize it instead of causing loss of information. Thanks for understanding. ParvatPrakash (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The disruptive editings were not initiated by me. I have merely reversed the edits which were made without acquiring consensus. Kindly refrain from making unexplained edits without proper discussion on talk page.

Best

Livingstonshr Livingstonshr (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding images of the subject to a page on them is not disruptive. Removing images is. Kindly explain why you would want to remove an image that depicts the subject clearly before removing it. ParvatPrakash (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It was not added but "replaced" by you. Had it been added, there was no reason for me to remove! Livingstonshr (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Calls for an apology from my side as I didn't notice it was replaced by @Goyama and not added. Edited it to neutralise the bias. Thanks. ParvatPrakash (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)