Talk:Jainism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Festivals section

This is long and detailed section. We already have separate detailed article on Jain rituals and festivals. Just put Main and summarize them here. It may seem better. --Nizil (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How is it now? I have merged it with the section on worship and trimmed it a bit. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Its good. I am already expanding Jain rituals and festivals. When Its done I will inform you. You may edit section here according to that article. It would be possible to trim further after that. Regards --Nizil (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Jain rituals and festivals article expanded with citations. Please improve ritual and festival section according to it. --Nizil (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Suresh Elangovan (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I am planning to do my review and comments before end of Dec 2012.

Resolved comments from JZCL (copied from talk page)
Hello.

I have made considerable changes to the article on Jainism. Thanks for the review. If possible, please advice me how to further improve the article. I have listed that article for GAN. Do you think it meets the criteria? Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow - well done for that major copyedit - this is a great improvement. Well done.
Alas there may still be a few things:

Lead section

  • Citations aren't needed in lede.

The three Jewels

  • There shouldn't be a space between are and :.
  • Briefly explain the three.

Anēkāntavāda

  • Consequently, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth. Remember, we are not writing this from a Jain's point of view, we are writing it from a Neutral Point of View. Reword for NPOV and add a citation.

Soul and Karma

  • CN for Hence, the scriptures advise carefulness in actions, awareness of the world, and purity in thoughts as means to avoid the burden of karma.

Demographics

  • Unfortunately (at the moment) the downfall of the article. No citations whatsoever!! Citations need to be added here, or else there is no chance.

Denominations

  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • CN for last paragraph.
  • Add a caption for the image is probably best.

Festivals

  • Citation needed for last bullet point.

Comparative studies

  • Is ref 157 for the quote? If it is, add page number and move it to after the colon; if not, find the quoter fast!

Notes

Sorry some of it is so picky, but you'll need it if you decide for another FA!

  • Ref 20 has a very broad page range - maybe narrow it down a bit.
  • Ref 31 has a full stop after it - take it out for consistency.
  • Ref 62 needs pp instead of p.
  • Ref 64 needs page number.
  • Ref 66 should be consistent with other referencing style, therefore make it 400-407.
  • Refs 94 and 95 should be combined as they overlap each other.
  • Ref 96 needs a page number.
  • Ref 97 needs a page number.
  • Ref 98 needs a page number.
  • Ref 99 needs a page number.
  • Ref 101 needs a page number.
  • Ref 102 needs a page number.
  • Ref 108 needs a page number.
  • Ref 109 needs a page number.
  • Refs 113 and 114 should be combined.
  • Refs 115 and 116 should be combined.
  • Ref 117 needs a page number.
  • Ref 124 needs correct formatting for cite web template e.g. work etc.
  • Ref 128 needs a page number.
  • Ref 129's first letter needs to be capitalised.
  • Ref 130 needs a page number.
  • Ref 131 needs a page number.
  • Ref 144 needs a page number.
  • Ref 146 needs spaces between page numbers.
  • Ref 148 needs spaces between page numbers.
  • Ref 152 needs a page number.
  • Ref 157 needs a page number.

References & Further reading

  • Just one comment for it all really - make sure all books' ISBN numbers are present.


I hope that's enough to keep you going, Rahul! Please, feel free to tick Done or Cross out anything that's above, so you can see everything you still need to do. There may be other things, and if you get this all done I'll try and find some more. JZCL 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, thanks a lot for the reply. I have removed citations from lead section, however, I have left a small number of citations in the lead as those claims are very likely to be challenged. I removed that unreferenced point in 'Festivals' section as it was not that relevant. I don't think I can find ISBN numbers for all the books. Some of the referenced books do not have one. Rest of the changes are almost exactly as you advised. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a committed editor if ever I saw one! Well done again Rahul. There might have just been one thing you missed - ref 23 has a very broad page range and it might be good if it could be reduced to a maximum of about 10. As for the references and further reading, I think some of the books may be able to take ISBNs (for example, I found Macmillan Encyclopedia of Death and Dying has ISBN 002865689X). If there are any you think have ISBNs, it's definitely best to include them. But don't get me wrong, I can't believe you did it all in a day! Well done for your valuable contributions to the article. If I were doing the GA review, when you'd sorted out those two things, I would pass it. JZCL 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This might be useful. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Very useful to go through other reviewers comments as well. I spent quality time this morning to review Jainism article. In my view, it meets all of the Wikipedia Good Article criteria provided. It is written in manual-style, without grammatical and spelling errors, factually accurate with conscious removal of natural bias that arise in subject matter of this kind, broad and at the same time covering the major points clearly. I did not find any original research or opinions included as part of this artice and it has got credible references to support the facts described, wherever required. Jainism is a major topic and it is impossible to cover all topics in this page - the expectation on the reader willbe that all major points covered. In that sense, a section on Jain Symbols is perhaps required to make it complete. Once that is done, I will be happy to mark it as Good Wikipedia Article. Thanks to you for the mammoth effort you have spent in getting to this stage. Well done. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a section on symbols as required. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

NOT A VALID REVIEWER

Unfortunately, per Wikipedia:GAN#How_to_review_an_article: you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, Suresh is not eligible to review this article. You are the primary contributor to this article, having made 423 edits and must therefore immediately ask for a second opinion. JZCL 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

JZCL, off late I have not made significant contributions to this article and it is changed in terms of format substantially. I will request for a second opinion straight away as advised. Since you have already done one round of reviewing, will you be interested to do the review and comment? Thanks. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter when you made the edits, as you are still the main contributor to the article. It's about your interest with the topic. Your review and comments are appreciated, and if you enjoy carrying them out, why not review some articles in the GAN list that don't fall under your conflict of interest? JZCL 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I will ask for a change of reviewer. This seems more appropriate because the current reviewer is not valid. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed lists

Following lists are removed.

  1. Tirthankara
  2. Chakravarti
  3. Baldev trio

I suggest to make them hidden list same as "Jain sect" Tree. Is it OK? --Nizil (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested that entire list of the 63 salakapurusha was not needed, therefore I removed it. I guess a hidden list should be good. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I am just working on hidden lists. I'l put them as soon as possible. --Nizil (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
All hidden lists added. Are they look OK? --Nizil (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the hidden lists Nizil. Would it be possible to remove the red dashed border and the blue background? And have a gray background as in the list for Baldevs? It'll be less flashy and more subtle.--Aayush18 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Red dashed border removed and grey background given to lists of Tirthankara, Chakravartins and Jain sects. I could not match them exactly to Baldeva as it is collapsabla table while others are collapsable text lists. But it looks better than before. Is it OK? --Nizil (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup it looks good!--Aayush18 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

some type of nazis or what?

so the main image on the page has a SWASTIKA in and this is not mentioned or discussed anywhere? what's that all about? are these the "good nazis" or something? sort it out please it is unacceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.8.209 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no connection between Jainism and Nazi. Swastika is considered auspicious symbol in Jainism. See aricle on Swastika for detail. --Nizil (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This does raise an important issue here. Many readers from the Western World are not familiar with the other connotations of the Swastika, and tend to associate it with the Nazis. I suggest that we add another line in the lead liking to the Swastika article, and explaining why it was chosen as the symbol for Jainism. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Better add the information to Swastika article where it should not be. This article should not be linked to racist and anti-sematic barbarism that is Nazism.111.91.75.62 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ashtprakari puja

There was one passage I couldn’t make head or tail of in my copy-edit: in the paragraph under “Rituals and festivals“ concerning Paryushana, the part about the Devas making ashtprakari puja for eight days—so I left it alone except for a clarification tag.

A general comment for editors involved in this area: while following up cross-references and so on, I noticed that several quite sizeable passages are duplicated verbatim elsewhere, sometimes in three or four separate articles. ISTM that much of this material could be removed or severely condensed (while linking to the article containing the full version), in those articles where it's least relevant. See also WP:CWW.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Muslim and Jain history

The paragraph in the history section that starts out with how the Muslims oppressed the Jains should not end with a sentence about how some Muslims were nice to the Jains. It looks like we can't make up our minds or we don't want to hurt Muslim feelings. I made that last sentence into a footnote but it was recently restored. If the paragraph is about Muslim oppression and how it contributed to Jain decline, that sentence does not belong. If we need to acknowledge that not all Muslims were oppressive because it is an important part of Jain history, it should be in a different paragraph and a different section (not the "Decline" section) that explains why it is important to Jain history. Jojalozzo 19:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought that footnote part was an error, because its basically used for only short references in the rest of the article. You do have a point, but I think the article would give an implication that the relationship of Jains and Muslims have always been of hatred without that sentence. This is, as far as I know, not true. I am moving the sentence back to footnote for the time being. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
That suggests that it might be useful to add a section that describes the relationship between Jains and those of other religions. Jojalozzo 17:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Image in the infobox

I think that the File:Jain hand.svg is better than File:Jain Prateek Chihna.svg for the infobox, mainly because of the fact that Jainism is commonly denoted by the former. It is used in File:Religious_syms.svg, which is also used by Wikiproject:Religion, and would thus make better consistency in wikipedia. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this point Rahul. Jainism was commonly denoted either by just the Swastika or the hand symbol on WP because editors didn't realize they weren't using the official symbol. The hand symbol may be used, but that doesn't make it the official symbol of Jainism. In fact, the hand symbol and the Swastika are both derived from the complete, official symbol of Jainism. Both are only partial symbols. Had editors from the beginning used just the official symbol of Jainism, it would've been picked up and placed on the File:Religious_syms.svg. So that was a mistake, and it can't be undone, so using the hand symbol because of that mistake isn't solving the problem, only perpetuating it. To maintain consistency with everything else and the real world, the official symbol of Jainism should be used here. I haven't reverted your changes, I'm waiting for us to be on the same page first.--Aayush18 (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I see. Evidently, you do have a point. However, The use of swastika in the flag as well as the prateek chinha seems redundant. Considering that the symbol is banned in many countries makes me even reluctant to use it. The Jains of America use the 'om' symbol instead of swastika I have heard. However, they retain the palm. Considering these, I think that the palm is the better choice among the two. But it really isn't a big deal, because if it is official, then there is no problem in displaying it. You can change it; or we can wait for a third person to comment and go with what he says. Your call! Also, what about the colour? Is it also official? The black border with blue strokes for the palm looks better better to me. Can this version of palm be inserted into the prateek-chinha? Rahul Jain (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the symbol is official and was accepted by every Jain sect during Mahavira's 2500th Nirvana anniversary in 1994. I'll go ahead and put this in. The Jain flag is also officially accepted by every Jain sect. However, I'm not too sure about the color of the symbol, I haven't been able to reliably determine the official color. The Prateek Chihna was recently vectorized and cleaned up by user Hazmat2. If you do come across the official color, we can request Hazmat2 to implement it.--Aayush18 (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Review

I am at this point in a lot of ways only a "weekend warrior," spending a lot of my time on weeknights getting together material from reference works about what they cover and why and suchlike. I have access to quite a few highly regarded reference works of all sorts, and will attempt, over the coming week, to review them and compare the content of this article to their own. But it might not be a bad idea to drop me a note later this week to remind me to come back here next weekend with anything I found. ;) John Carter (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

P. S. I am in the process of adding the rather lengthy Jainism article in the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics to WikiSource as we speak. The article there is a rather lengthy one, of course, and it is about a hundred years old, but it should be useful. I am also unfortunately still trying to get my hands on the most recent 2nd print editon of the Jones/Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion, which has a rather good article on it as well. It might, unfortunately, take at least a few more days. A few other recent reference sources which might make good bases for comparison can be found here, here, and here, the last being maybe the most highly regarded of the recent reference sources. I still prefer the print editions myself, because, as I have seen elsewhere, it can include signatures and sometimes some other material which are either omitted from the online editions or included elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Last Revert

I will revert it back to the change i had made under 24 hours, if i don't get citation for any line like.

"Jainism is declining" "jainism' were also oppressed by hindus"

Thanks, because i am sure that jainism is increasing, and they were never oppressed by hindus, but actually encouraged. Capitals00 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

See Jainism#Decline. The section is appropriately sourced. The lead only summarizes the contents and does not usually needs citation. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on both points, although, I suppose, if one insisted on it, the citation could be put in the lead itself, if others insist on it. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Now if we put the line like "Oppressed by muslims" which is sourced, some user may accuse of being islamicphob, so better if the whole line is removed. Capitals00 (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I have placed citation in the lead. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I read them, well, it's basically one case, from the 14th century, it's not that there's need to mention, because the point is, that 'oppression' which is viewed differently, especially when you add islam along, who's followers have converted many of jain's temples as there mosques, that's something apart from the followers of hinduism, nor any killings seems to be taking place, and if we take your view, then buddhism needs to be added as well, if you look at this book [1], Page 68-69.Capitals00 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], Despite one of them being personal source, each of them talks about the mutual relationship of these 2 religions, which is just opposite among islam. Capitals00 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
What "oppressed" actually means there? Because there seems to be a history about buddhism-jainism conflict.[7], and this article also mentions "The Mauryan king Ashoka was converted to Buddhism and his pro-Buddhist policy subjugated the Jains of Kalinga" which can be added and described, i found this one[8] regarding ashoka. Capitals00 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we can use the definition of oppression as "exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner." (from opression) As far as I know, the Buddhist-Jain conflict has been mostly philosophical. Can we restore the original lead? Also, I don't think "jainsamaj.org" can be considered reliable as per Wikipedia standards. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I had also added a pdf link in the post, which comes from Orissa, the first major origin of Jainism. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent the sources. The journal you cited states that:[9] "After Ashoka’s invasion of Kalinga in 261 B.C., Buddhism was ushered in and it gained much popularity in Orissa due to the missionary activities. However, it cannot be said that Ashoka’s missionary activities adversely affected the ruin of the Jainism in Kalinga. Jainism continued to flourish as a major religion of Kalinga even after the Mauryas invasion." I am restoring the previous lead. With constant misrepresentation of sources, it is hard to assume good faith. I request you to build consensus before changing. Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Read again, clearly writes "In the fourth and fifth century B.C. when the Nanda dynasty was in power in Magadha, Orissa was stronghold of Jainism"..."as a symbol of victory over Kalinga, three hundred years back. Jainism must have suffered a temporary set back during the rule of Ashoka in 3rd century B.C".. "jainsamaj.org" is literally speaking the same thing that the book source has provided. In this page[10], it doesn't really talk about war, but a kind of conflict which is same as it was between jainas and hindus. So once again, if you are targeting the groups by providing 'hinduism' or 'islam' it can be controversial, it's better if you add 'other faiths', or just remove the line. Capitals00 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
A temporary setback because Ashoka converted to Buddhism and propagated Buddhism. How does that established that the Jains were oppressed or persecuted? Rahul Jain (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"A Social History Of India" By S. N. Sadasivan, P.219, and "Hinduism and Buddhism" reads "Religious feeling often ran high in southern India. Buddhists, Jains and Hindus engaged in violent disputes, and persecution was more frequent than in the north. It is easy to suppose that Bodhidharma being the head of some heretical sect had to fly and followed the example of many monks in going to China." Page 96. Capitals00 (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That's from Charles Eliot's 1927 book "Hinduism and Buddhism". The title gives you an idea of what it is about. The passage describes Bodhidharma, a rather well-known Buddhist, fleeing from India. You quote this as evidence that Buddhists oppressed Jains. The sentence transparently refers to persecution of Buddhists by Hindus, but even then it merely says it's "easy to suppose" this might have happened. He's just guessing. Jains are mentioned in passing. Capitals00, it is no longer possible to assume good faith. You constantly misrepresent sources to pronmote a crudely Hindutvavadi agenda. You are either incompetent or dishonest. You edit as though you have no interest in the truth, only in your agenda. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Who is talking about buddhists being oppressed here? It's not even the subject, honestly speaking, you must read, think, then write. It's well documented that jainas were oppressed by the buddhists, but one editor seems be liking buddhists so he can't put that in the article.Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Who is talking about buddhists being oppressed here? YOU JUST DID. This is just evidence your own utter incomprehension of the very sources you quote. Your stupid quotation of a passage about Boddiharma made it the subject. I was pointing out that the passage is not about the topic of this article. Paul B (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It's absolutely incorrect to say that Jains have never been oppressed by Hindus - there have been many instances of this (and the article has references to support this statement). That said, the "Decline" bit in the article does have a problem.
The "Decline" section reeks of persecution complex. "Oppression" by other religious groups was neither the biggest nor the only reason for Jainism's decline. Glasenapp (the same pages given as ref) cites many instances of Jains voluntarily moving away to the other popular sects (also, page 75 onwards, he talks about how Hindu rulers patronized and granted privileges to the Jains; Akbar was similarly benevolent to the Jains). The reasons for decline of Jainism were many-fold including withdrawl of liberal royal patronage, people's aversion to its austerity, active proselytising by other religious groups, lack of worthy leadership in the medieval period, fragmentation into many sub-groups etc. (for sources, see Jainism by Natubhai Shah; Luniya 1978 etc.). To quote G. Widengren (Historia Religionum II, p. 352):
"There were bloody but isolated persecutions... but the decline of Jainism was due more to the success of the Brahmanic counter-reformation, which succeeded in reconciling philosophical speculations with myths and intuitions of the peoples of various origins, and also to the increased sway of emotional and mystic currents based on the bhakti.
As for the Buddhism bit, Capitals00's concern about Buddhism being excluded does seem valid (before someone asks, I'm an non-religious, non-Hindutvavadi). Glasenapp (p. 69-75) is being cited for the intro statement that states Jainism declined due to oppression by the followers of Hinduism and Islam. The same source also says "Buddhism had oppressed Jainism for some time quite strongly to such an extent that it had to beat the retreat before Buddhism in many areas...". In the "Decline" section, the Saivite legend about Pandya ruler's persecution is mentioned as a fact (when most historians consider it as a mere legend - the only source for this legend are the Saivite stories, and they actually say that the Jains first started the violence! - the legend is not found in any Jain source). Similar legends about Buddhist persecution of Jains are not present in the article, although these are more numerous (e.g. the one about Ashoka killing 18,000 of them). The article should either mention them all, or mention none.
utcursch | talk 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, this person is basically blaming all the decline on hindus and muslims, but not on any one else, because he preferably seems to be liking them, which pushes the POV. But the fact is that i can't find even a single case of jainas being oppressed in last 200 years or more.Capitals00 (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It's opinion of one writer if they are "fabrication", not certainly the fact, this source[11] at page 82, suggests that "That when a jain pictured the buddha worshipping a jain guru, Asoka retaliated by killing 18,000 jainas. Learning of another sacrilege, he burnt a jain family alive and then offered a royal bounty for the had of any jain killed and brought to him." So shall we add the whole? There are multiple sources confirming it. Capitals00 (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Consequences of diet

Since jains are traditionally vegans or at least lacto-vegetarians, it would seem that they are ideal material for comparing the health effects of their diet with those of traditional meat-eaters.

Have such studies been made? If so, surely they would be of interest for the main article.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Paul Magnussen. There are some professional tests/surveys, made by special researches, they have been made in UK, China and other countries, such information is much more coherent to the diet related pages. Capitals00 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics article on Jainism

I have included the above article at User:John Carter/Jainism. I know that I myself am far less than familiar with some of the characters used in some of the articles from that source, and honestly don't even know myself how to generate them. I intend to add the article to WikiSource when it's done, but, if someone who might perhaps be more familiar with the languages and special characters involved were to want to check the draft there against the original starting on page 465 (or page 487 of the file) here, I would be very appreciative. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Agreed with the whole, except the first line, which goes "like buddhism", that's it. Capitals00 (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Who are the Jains?

The article does a very good job explaining Jain belief, but I think it would improve with a section that talks about Jain people.

Other minority World Religion groups are sometimes referred to as Ethnoreligious groups. Would this be an appropriate term for Jains, especially if they have low-intermarriage rate? How are different Jain populations ethnically related to each other? to near-by non-Jains? What are customs about whom can marry whom? Is intra-somaj marriage preferable in most somajes? If so, how is modern life affecting these customs? An explanation of the somajes would be helpful.

Other questions: Although Jains avoid farming, what are common professions among Jains (beside the diamond market, which is mentioned)? What is the position of Jain women in the family? How many Jain women work outside the home. What are the socio-economic status of Jains? What is their relation to persons of other status? Though Jainism is caste-less and believes in equality of all life, does this translate into the idea of civil rights? Jains are said to have influenced Gandhi in pursuing non-violence, but is there Jain political activity/activism today?

Membership? Who is considered Jain? Is it passed exclusively by birth? One parent? Both? Jains don't proselytize, but do they accept converts? Are "lapsed" Jains still considered Jain by other Jains? Is it self-determined or are there accepted parameters for membership in Jainism?

How are Jains viewed by non-Jains...what is the perception of non-Jains of Jain identity? What are some controversies about Jains? Negative or positive stereotypes? What are things that Jains are known for in present day? Elembee17 (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)elembee17 25, Aug, 2013

Jainism template

Is there a reason the Jainism template isn't in the Jainism article?

69.204.91.53 (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Places of worship

This article misses a section on the derasars and Sthanakvas. Also, pilgrimage spots like Palitana. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Influence on Hinduism

Did Jainism influenced religious concepts in Hinduism? Komitsuki (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! Most of the Indian philosophical concepts like Karma, Samsara, Moksha and transmigration of soul are originally Sramana concepts adopted and modified by Hindus. Check out these sources: User:Indian Chronicles/Jain Sources.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Indian Chronicles|Indian Chronicles ]] (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) claims that some topics of philosophy such as Karma, Samsara, Moksha and transmigration of soul were adopted by Hindus from Jains has no proof and so this is not acceptable. Jains have bad habit of making tall claims against Hinduism without any acceptable evidence. If we accept their claim we shall have to say Vedic developments were after Jains. However, it is not proved by any standards of history. In BhagwatGita what Arjun has said to justify his withdrawal from fights is the base of Jainsim and so from this one may say that Jainism has its roots in BhagwatGita written by Vyas. If this is accepted one may admit that Jianism emerged from Hindu ideology suggested by Arjun. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Time cycle

User:Himanshujain, I did not undo your edit because it was wrong, but because it was abrupt, provided no explanations about the terms, and unwikified (ie. not quite ready for prime time) and that too only because Jainism is a GA article. Please don't be discouraged, but please discuss the issues (how to introduce it and where, its scope, level of summary etc) with the editors here. I'm not one of them, but others above are. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 12 September 2013 #UTC#

Himanshujain, I have deleted it again; I have to agree with Fowler&fowler. I really hope you will work here on the talk page to make your proposed text article-ready. Are there any reliable sources that you can cite? Can we work on a way to introduce the subject less abruptly, and offer some explanation of the terminology that you use? Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As for period when Jainism emerged as a full fledged religious activity becomes clear from the fact that all its literature in in Ardhamagadhi a prakrut language whereas all important scriptures of Hinduism are in Sanskrit. Emergence of Ardhamagadhi language is about 3rd century BC. Whereas, Sanskrit we know existed ever since Vedic period (about 700 BC). This evidence clearly shows that Jainism is of much later period and any claim that Jainism influenced Hinduism becomes baseless. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't we look for the truths in such matters and document that these are known truths that are known as truths? Claims in en.wikipedia.org cannot be left without documentation. MaynardClark (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes

Please discuss any planned edits in the talk page first.
Fyi, I noticed the inclusion of more than a dozen minority opinions in the article.
Over the coming weeks, I plan on finding some time to comb through the article and highlight any issues here.
Thanks --Ratha K (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Since your bold edit got reverted, I think it applies on you to establish consensus. "Jainism is a Near Eastern religion that established its presence around the 6th century B.C. Led by the spiritual elite of the Hindu establishment, the new religion sought to focus on what they believed to be the core aspect of Hinduism - spiritual understanding of man and the universe." This actually is serious POV-pushing. Jainism is older than that and it was not led by spiritual elite of hindu establishment. Also, "The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity" cannot be used to replace sources which are written specifically for Jainism. I am reverting the recent edit as of now. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Rahul, I will continue to assume good faith, despite your two reverts.
Historical revisionism aside, even your own source contradicts your claim. Historia Religionum, notes the following:
• "Jainism appeared more than two thousand five hundred years ago"
• "Thus it accords fully with the atmosphere of the late Vedic period in which it originated"
• "In its ethical imposition, Jainism is closely related to Buddhism, with which it is roughly contemporary."
I'll attribute this to an honest mistake instead of cherry picking facts.
Your second source, meanwhile, is written by "a retired medical practitioner, PhD in Jain religion; author of Jainism: The World of Conquerors 2 volumes".
In light of this, I am reverting your edit. I will be returning soon to check through the rest of the article.
Thanks.--Ratha K (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If he has a Ph.D in Jain religion, what makes him unreliable? Motilal Banarasidass is a reputed publisher of books on Indology. The claim that Jainism established its presence around the 6th century B.C. is POV if not hoax. It has been established that Parsva is a historical figure and that Mahavira who lived around 6th century BC is not the founder of Jainism. Secondly, you did not justify the statement "Led by the spiritual elite of the Hindu establishment, the new religion sought to focus on what they believed to be the core aspect of Hinduism - spiritual understanding of man and the universe." Its probably based on that apologetics book which cannot be considered as reliable source for information on Jainism as far as I understand. Helmuth Von Glasenapp points out, in the reference you provided, that there are remarkable similarities in Hinduism and Jainism's social and cultural life which I agree. However, this does not support any of the claim that you made. There is a similar discussion at Talk:India, please participate in it. But I would suggest that you self-revert until a consensus has been reached. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
He is neither an anthropologist nor a historian, just a medical doctor and a practicing Jain who obtained a post graduate Phd in Jain religion from somewhere. He provides no credible references to his statements. Feel free to add credible references to support your claims, and we can discuss it here. My references provide an exact reference to what I wrote. For the record, historically, Jainism has been accepted as an off-shoot of Hinduism. I could provide ten more references if you like. Please do not confuse Jainism with Brahmanic or Vedic teachings. As for Talk:India, as the other editors have pointed out, you need to provide specific, credible references. I do not intend to jump in another discussion. Thanks. --Ratha K (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea why you insist on having same discussion at two different talk pages. The book of christian Apologetics is not a credible source for information on Jainism and Helmuth Von Glasenapp does not even remotely states what you wrote. Since your bold edits were reverted, please maintain the Status Quo until a concensus has been reached. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It has been proved beyond doubt that Jainism is not an offshoot of Hinduism. Hinduism did not even exist during the time of Mahavira. Kindly do not push Hindu POV. Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Are we actually arguing that Jainism is not off shoot? Well, you can't deny the most obvious, and hinduism was known as "Sanatana Dharma" or "vedic" that time. BTW i looked the edits of Ratha K, i agree with them. Capitals00 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Excepting Mahavir all other Tirthankars are not proved by any source of historical data. Probably, they are creations of later story writers. Mahavir made this ideology popular and before his time it was not know to common people. However, Hinduism existed much before Mahavir as we know that many Vedic references are much older than Mahavir's time. Mahavir and Buddha existed practically at the same period. It is a common experience that Jains of today want to prove that their ideology existed prior to Hinduism but they cannot do it due to lack of enough proofs. Since 'Hinduism' is a generic term covering all ideologies which had arisen to guide people since the earliest times, it will be better to stop this unnecessary argument because, by my experience of Jains of today, this argument will never reach any consensus unless others admit that Jainism is older than Hinduism. Fact of the matter is, we Hindus believe that Jainism is just another ideology included in a pan-Hindu 'family of ideologies'. Therefore, to say that Jainism existed prior to Hinduism appears to be senseless. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we asking for a 'search for the historical Mahavir' and a 'search for the historical tirthankars' the way Christendom conducted a 'search for the historical Jesus' to find out what historical data there is in hand, at whatever the latest time had acquired, as an ethical duty to objectivity and honesty? Well, that could be part of this broder 'Hindu' tradition of reflection about Jainism, which holds some beliefs that are quite contrary to some beliefs within some putatively 'Hindu' perspectives - one of which is the centrality of the practice of ahimsa, a non-negotiable moral commitment (which NOMINAL 'Hindus' seem willing to trade-off for immediate convenience, even when it proves materially harmful for them to 'go along with the crowd'). MaynardClark (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus is that the matrix of Vedic sacrifice and shramana practices were both present in the earliest period and that established proto-shrauta and proto-shramana practices as independent religious movements are both descended from this period. Shramanism and "orthodox Vedism" are both the product of earlier Indic religion. The term "Hinduism" is much, much later (as is Sanatana Dharma); it's improper to call both Jainism and Buddhism "Hindu". Ogress smash! 10:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox must be changed

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes) before restoring the infobox to this page. The Jainism infobox currently violates several of the main concepts that are supposed to be present in an infobox. This affects other pages on Wikipedia, so this is a big issue. Basically, navigating internally on this page should be done using a table of contents box, while an infobox is supposed to be used on other (non-Jainism) pages when those other pages mention Jainism. Under the Wikipedia Manual of Style an infobox isn't for a topic's own page, but rather to allow other pages an easy way to summarize this page's topic. This is done to allow those other pages a quick summary of Jainism without actually needing to repeat large amounts of Jainism information. The infobox is a way to give unrelated pages that mention Jainism some quick links for a reader who wants more information on the topic, but doesn't clutter up their unrelated page with repeated information that's already available somewhere else. The changes that need to be made to the infobox: First, the infobox needs to be editable from the page that shares the infobox's name. Second, under no circumstances should a flag or organizational symbol be a part of the infobox as the purpose of an infobox is to be inserted into other (often unrelated) pages. 23.116.49.179 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect on several points:
  • while an infobox is supposed to be used on other (non-Jainism) pages -> No, an infobox can be a navigational tool. See Christianity and Islam for example.
  • the infobox needs to be editable from the page that shares the infobox's name -> No, that's not how infoboxes works. They're templates.
  • under no circumstances should a flag or organizational symbol be a part of the infobox -> No, symbols are fine. See the articles I linked to.
The proper place to discuss improvements to the infobox is Template talk:Infobox Jainism. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

nirvana and moksha

I always thought 'nirvana' was exclusively Buddhist. I thought it would be useful to link to the wiki article that says "The terms moksa and nirvana are often used interchangeably in the Jain texts. In Jainism, moksha (liberation) follows nirvāṇa." This was helpful to me. I think it would improve this article if someone knowledgeable could address the use of these terms in Jainism. I'll add the Wiki link at Mokṣa to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha_(Jainism). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Positive" and Negative Criticism

How can you criticize something positively? Shouldn't this be changed to something closer to "reception"? Although a different term obviously. 159.92.237.74 (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed. I'm sure better wording could be found. --NeilN talk to me 20:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

The article has been removed from the list of "Good articles" following the reassessment of the GA status. But, a detailed review was not done. A detailed review like this one, will be helpful in improving the article. Nimit (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the current status of Article? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 19:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
At present, it is a "former good article," apparently assessed as C class. Volume 7 of the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, a work which is in general counted as one of the "standard" sources on the subject of religion, has an article on "Jainism" which runs to about 9 pages. I imagine the article is available from WP:RX if someone were to request it there. It might be a good idea to review that article, and any other well regarded recent encyclopedic sources, to see what it covers and to what weight, and maybe try to structure our article more or less in accord with them, particularly in terms of relative weight. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Assessment Checklist

The table below is as per last assessment of this article and has been added here to help us pinpoint the issues and improve the article -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Issues highlighted in sections? Tags to highlight issues Comments
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. No
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. No{{cn}}
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). No
2c. it contains no original research. No{{Original research|table}}
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. N/A
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). N/A
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No{{POV-section}}
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. N/A
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. N/A
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. No
7. Overall assessment. N/A

Deva Shastra Guru

As a subsection of Jain concepts merging god, monasticism and literature or creating them as further subsections. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging WP Jainism members Nizil Shah Indian Chronicles -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

create new subsections, IMO. --Nizil (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Section Rename Proposal

I propose renaming Jain Community as demographics and adding the numbers and statistics in it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I further propose renaming Jain Text as Scriptures / Literature. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Further Jain Philosophy to be renamed as Jain concepts -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

New Section Proposal

Etymology

Jainism from Jina. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Religious Places

There's no mention of Shikharji, Mount Kailash (Locations where Tirthankara attained moksha) and Bavangaja etc. in this article -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a great scope for such a section.Nimit (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Name suggested Pilgrim as a subsection in practices. Main article Tirtha. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Separate section needed. Not under practices. -Nimit (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Done -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bhaktamara Stotra

As a subsection in Prayers is one of the most prevalent prayers. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Or in a sub-section named "famous prayers". -Nimit (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Done-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Aarti

As a subsection in Prayers -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A subsection is not needed just a little info. about it is okay. -Nimit (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sallekhana

As a subsection in practice -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. -Nimit (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sravaka

Not separate section, but the word should be mentioned. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree.-Nimit (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Section Reorder Proposal

  • Universal History to be a subsection of Jain cosmology instead of History. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Tamil Nadu subsection to be shifted to Demographics (Renamed from Jain Community). -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Pankaj, prime facia, all your proposals seems great. This will greatly improve the article. -Nimit (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot जैन Please also comment on Deva shastra guru. Pinging Ogress for suggestions.
Don't agree with that proposal. It can't be done. Nimit (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. -Nimit (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

History restructure

Rather than royal patronage / decline, why not use BCE, medival, modern. ? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. Opinion of other editors is required. Nimit (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jainism/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 10:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick fail unfortunately. I will be giving a general idea of the major issues with the article in a while. Yash! 10:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

While a lot has been improved, I am afraid that this still fails a number of GA criteria. A big issue here is the lack of references. Large portions of prose remains unsourced. Every fact in a GA should cite at least one reliable source and a lot of work needs to be done here. Also, there is inconsistency in the references present. Some parameters are wrongly placed. For example, "The Hindu" should be in "work=" and not in "publisher=". The date should be consistent and should only follow one pattern, either yyyy-mm-dd or dd-mm-yyyy. It should be the same throughout. Coming to the main issue that I see is the quality and amount of prose. While it is not necessary for GAs to cover each and every topic, they should properly cover every topic. A subject as vast as this, should have more information than currently present. More on Art and Reception can be added. Also, the article is in need of a good copyedit. The article does not feel neutral and many weasel words, vague terms, and many subjective phrases are used. The article presents a particular POV about various things instead of having them in an encyclopedic manner. MoS issues persist as well. See also section has way too many links. Size of paragraphs is not consistent with some being very small and some large. More balanced paragraphs would be preferred. Also, the lead doesn't summarize the article in a way it should. The lead should mention almost every major sub-topic used in the article. The lead currently only talks about what the religion is and nothing about the other topics covered in the prose. If possible, remove the references from the lead and use them in the prose. As such, everything in the lead should be covered in detail in the prose and every major sub-topic should have a mention in the lead.

These issues that I see are after having a quick look at the article and I fear a closure look would reveal more problems. As of now, the article fails GAC #1a, #1b and #2a. #2c and #2d are doubtful and will require a close inspection. It also fails #3a #3b and #4. These are the main issues with the article. I am afraid this article is far from reaching the GA status and needs a lot of attention. I suggest you request a copyedit and take it to the peer review if you need to know more about the issues. I am failing this as the mentioned problems would take really long to be fixed and it is better to have a "good" version of any article to get reviewed. This may be helpful. Best, Yash! 16:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yash! This article has improved a lot as compared to last time. Most of the issues have also been resolved. Can you please take a look at it now. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

References should be in some sort of order

The references in the "References" section should be in some sort of order. Typical orders are alphabetical by last name, or chronological by date of publication. Without an order, sources are difficult to locate.

I'm happy to apply an order if there is a consensus as to which one should be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have already arranged them by date (orig-year). Please check and confirm. Thanks! -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Two things that could be improved in the article

I have already shared with Capankajsmilyo two things that I think could be improved in the article. One is the appearance of the tables, and I have given specific suggestions at User talk:Corinne#Jainism. The other is the arrangement of the images in Jainism#Statues and sculptures and the content of the captions, and I have left specific questions and suggestions at User talk:Capankajsmilyo#Jainism. Corinne (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne. I am afraid, I am not able to interpret the issue due to lack of experience in styling of tables and images. @Checkingfax, would you please like to help here? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Corinne and Capankajsmilyo: I moved the gallery down, centered it, and turned the convert abbreviations off (I believe there is MoS saying measurement units should be spelled out). I did not edit the captions. Since they are at the bottom of the page I do not think it is too big of a deal, although normally captions are supposed to be as succinct as possible. See MOS:CAPTIONS. Maybe create prose from the caption text, then shorten the captions?
I have created a test area in my sandbox here: User:Checkingfax/sandbox#Practice tables to experiment with table looks. Feel free to play around in my sandbox. Also, see: Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments regarding the improved lead

Capankajsmilyo As I mentioned on the GA review page, the lead is much improved. There are several issues I'd like to discuss with you. I'm going to copy the first paragraph here, number the sentences and remove the reference numbers for ease of discussion:

(1)Jainism (Gujarati: જૈન, /ˈdʒeɪnɪzəm/[1] or /ˈdʒaɪnɪzəm/[2]), traditionally known as Jain dharma, is an ancient Indian religion that prescribes the path of ahiṃsā (non-violence) towards all living beings. (2) The path practiced and preached by Jinas is Jainism, and the followers of the path are called Jains. (3) Jains believe that a human being who has conquered all inner passions comes to possess omniscience; such a person is called a Jina (conqueror). (4) Jain philosophy distinguishes the soul (consciousnesses) from the body (matter).[note 1] (5) Jains believe that all living beings are really soul, intrinsically perfect and immortal. (6) Souls in transmigration (i.e., still liable to repeated births and deaths) are said to be embodied in the body as if in a prison. (7) Non-injury (ahiṃsā) and self-control are said to be the means to liberation. (8) The liberated souls free from transmigration (saṃsāra) are worshipped as God. (9) The three main teachings of Jainism are: Ahiṃsā, Anekantavada (non-absolutism or multiplicity of viewpoints) and Aparigraha (non-attachment to possessions).

1) In sentence 2, you say, "The path practiced and preached by Jinas is Jainism..." I think that linking the term "Jinas" here is not enough. I think you should define it briefly here. In the next sentence, you say that "Jains believe that a human being who has conquered all inner passions comes to possess omniscience; such a person is called a Jina (conquerer)." How can a person who has "conquered all inner passions" still be "followers of the path"? If they are still on the path, how can they have conquered all inner passions? So, are "Jinas" on the path to enlightenment (or omniscience) or not? This is confusing to a non-Jain.

2) Here is sentence 6:

Souls in transmigration (i.e., still liable to repeated births and deaths) are said to be embodied in the body as if in a prison.

(a) I recommend changing "i.e." to "that is":
  • Souls in transmigration (that is, still liable to repeated births and deaths)...
I know "liable to" was my wording, but I'm thinking that it might sound better if you change "liable to" to "undergoing":
  • Souls in transmigration (that is, still undergoing repeated births and deaths)...
(b) Also, I do not like the sound of "embodied in the body". The word "embodied" means enclosed or present in the body. I recommend either deleting "in the body" or substituting another verb for "embodied":
(1) are said to be embodied as if in a prison
(2) are said to be trapped in the body as if in a prison
(3) are said to be held in the body as if in a prison
(4) are said to dwell in the body as if in a prison
(5) are said to be imprisoned in the body
I kind of like either (2) or (4), but I'll leave the choice up to you.

Now I will copy the second paragraph of the lead:

(1) Jain texts reject the idea of a creator or destroyer God and postulate an eternal universe. (2) Jain cosmology divides the worldly cycle of time into two parts (avasarpiṇī and utsarpiṇī). (3) According to Jain belief, in every half-cycle of time, twenty-four Tīrthankaras grace this part of the Universe to teach the unchanging doctrine of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. (4) The word Tīrthankara signifies the founder of a tirtha, which means a fordable passage across a sea. (5) The Tīrthankara show the 'fordable path' across the sea of interminable births and deaths. (6) Rishabhanatha is said to be the first Tīrthankara of the present half-cycle (avasarpiṇī). (7) Mahavira (6th century BC) is revered as the last Tīrthankaras of avasarpiṇī. (8) Jain texts explain that Jainism has always existed and will always exist. (9) However, modern historians place existence of Jainism as ancient as 9th century BC.

1) In sentence 4, you define the word "Tīrthankara" as "the founder of a tirtha". Therefore, "Tirthankara" is singular – a single person or god or person-god. In sentence 5, you write "The Tirthankara show the 'fordable path'..." Because you use the plural form of the verb ("show"), "Tirthankara" is plural. So, it seems that "Tirthankara" can be either singular or plural. If that is the case, that's fine, but it's a bit confusing. I think it might clear up the confusion a bit if you say, after sentence 4, how many Tirthankara there have been. Then, when you say in sentence 5, "The Tirthankara show...", the reader will already know that Tirthankara is plural.

2) In sentence 7, you write, "Mahavira (6th century BC) is revered as the last Tirthankaras of avasarpiṇī." Here, you first refer to what seems like a singular person, god, or person-god (Mahavira), but then say "the last Tirthankaras. "Tirthankaras" has an "s" on it, so it looks plural. Do you really mean to use this form here? Wouldn't it be more correct to use the singular Tirthankara to describe Mahavira? Also, here you introduce a plural form with an "s" whereas earlier, in sentence 5, you used Tirthankara in a plural sense.

3) Sentence 9 reads, "However, modern historians place existence of Jainism as ancient as 9th century BC." I would change the main part of this sentence to:

  • ...modern historians place the existence of Jainism as early as the 9th century BC.

I think the word "however" here is a bit heavy-handed (too much emphasis). I would re-write the last two sentences as follows:

  • Though Jain texts explain that Jainism has always existed and will always exist, modern historians place the existence of Jainism as early as the 9th century BC. or:
  • Though Jain texts explain that Jainism has always existed and will always exist, modern historians place the earliest evidence of Jainism in the 9th century BC.

 – Corinne (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks a lot for such an elaborate analysis @corinne. I am sorry I could not understand your sentence 2 point. The term Jina is defined in the very next line. Further, the one who has conquered all inner passions is called Jina and the follower is called Jain. I think you misread Jina and Jain as similar. To make it more clear I have shifted the explanation of Jina before.

Sentence 6 has been fixed as per your suggestion.

Paragraph 2: 1) 2) and 3) Resolved as per suggestion. I would like to clarify here that there were 24 tirthankaras. Since, tirthankara is not an english word, I am not certain of using "s" or not. It might be tirthankara for both singular and plural or tirthankara for singular and tirtankaras for plural. Since I am not sure, I have assumed that word tirthankaras is acceptable and hence used "s" for plural. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@corinne is it eligible for GA now? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on whether an article is eligible for GA, but I'd be glad to read the article through again to see if there are any more grammatical or wording issues. Regarding whether to use an "s" to form the plural of Tirthankara, shouldn't you be using what reliable sources in English use?  – Corinne (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Corinne That would be of great help. Regarding "s", the RS use it, so I guess tirthankara"s" would be good. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
O.K., but no apostrophe before the "s", just tirthankaras.  – Corinne (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jainism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

  • Attempted to fix sourcing for //tamil.berkeley.edu/html/chapter_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments as per PR request

  • The article fluctuates between IAST (e.g. ?hiṃsā) and Indian English spellings (e.g. ahimsa, instead of IAST ahiṃsā). This includes to be standardized
  • Repetition of info: Info about Vegetarianism from Non-violence needs to be moved in "Vegetarianism" section
  • Honorifics like Lord need to be removed
  • Shouldn't the renouncement of clothes by Digambaras be mentioned in Monasticism

(More to come) --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Link Error

The asceticism link near the end of the first paragraph actually links to the Jain Monasticism page. Wordgirl5000 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2016 (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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jainism/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 13:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


First of all, I'm coming at this as a person not particularly familiar with the religion. This is good insofar as it lets me tell you if things are clear, but if you want to get this to featured article, you're going to want to get several people who are knowledgeable. You also want to make sure that subjects under dispute are covered fairly.

I'll give an example of possible problems I have no way to catch using other religions as an example: Christianity has several major sects. It would be entirely possible to describe an aspect of Christianity, say, transsubstantiation, from the point of view of Catholicism, and it might not be obvious that a very different view on the subject existed in another group. One could also do things like write about the beliefs of more fundamentalist Christians as if they were key defining points of the religion, ignoring that liberal Christians might disagree quite a bit with that.

Jainism is a smaller religion, so this article is less likely to have those sorts of problems, but my point is that if it did, I'm unlikely to catch it, so getting an expert to review this is important if you're going to take it to Featured article

Okay. Disclaimer aside: Let's get started. This is the fifth GA review, so let's start by looking at the previous four.

GA review 4 points out some parts are unreferenced. This is still a minor problem here: Every paragraph out side of the lead either needs to be referenced, or be a list or quote referenced just before it starts. I'll mark up the places where a reference is needed.

This is important: Make sure the reference covers the whole paragraph if it comes at the end of a paragraph and there's no reference before that.

And I'll pause the review here to allow this issue - almost fixed, but not quite - to be worked on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


Okay. This is a big article. Let's just accept this is going to take a few back-and-forth passes, and just relax and co-operate on it. It does seem too be most of the way there. To start, let's deal with the referencing issue - I've marked all the places where, off-hand, I'd expect a citation, but didn't see one. In some cases, it may be covered by a later reference, but you should always end every paragraph with a reference for that paragraph, even if you end up having a few copies of the same reference in a row, unless it's a list or quote that you sourced immediately prior to it. E.g.:

Bad (First "paragraph" just pretend it's a paragraph lacks a cite. The information is covered by the reference at the end of the second paragraph - but the reader doesn't know that.


Leaves and some stars are green.

Celery is green too[1]


Corrected (Each paragraph has a copy of the citation that covers it.)

Leaves and some stars are green. [2]

Celery is green too[2]


Alternate Correction (If one cite doesn't cover everything.)

Leaves and some stars are green.[2][3]

Celery is green too[2]



Good (This is fine)

According to X. Ample:[4]

Leaves and Celery are green


Good (Or do it this way!)

According to X. Ample:

Leaves and Celery are green[4]

Anyway, you get the idea. I've also marked everything I think needs a reference. Poke me on my talk page when you want me to have another look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I'm over-explaining. You wrote this article; I know you know things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Things that are Green" by X. Ample
  2. ^ a b c d "Things that are Green" by X. Ample
  3. ^ "The Colours of Stars by R. Green
  4. ^ a b "Things that are Green" by X. Ample
I'm not taking part in this review, but I do have a comment on that advice. There is no requirement to have a little blue number at the end of every paragraph, either in the GA requirements or in Wikipedia guidelines generally. Of course, it is a legitimate question for a reviewer to ask where that paragraph is verified, but you should not fail the GA if you get a good answer to that question and still no little blue number. This criterion is something that has been invented by reviewers and patrollers to make their life easier. It has no basis in policy. It is perfectly legitimate to reference a whole section with one inline cite or just cover it in a general reference unless it is one of the very specific things that WP:V demands an inline cite for. SpinningSpark 23:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Review part II

There's still one citation needed tag, but let's deal with the next obvious issue - the article fails to summarise the subarticles well near the end of it - one gets the feeling that some author of this lost steam near the end.

So, let's deal with the four end sections next.

  1. Temples: This is the best of the four, but it focuses on one example temple. That's not a bad idea, but - and while I will point out to be careful, because a lot of the subarticle Jain temple is rather bad - I'd say that a summary of (or just a rewriting of) the "Architecture" subsection of the article - WITH CITATIONS ADDED would be a sufficient addition. IMPORTANT NOTE: If you do copy it over, make sure to say you're doing so in your edit summary.
  2. Statues and sculptures this focuses on a single example, and I'd argue this example would be better moved into the subarticle, Jain sculpture, where it would be very much worth noting. For an overview article, though, remove it (to the subarticle; don't just delete it) and I think you basically want to copy from the subarticle the lead, iconography, and examples sections as they currently are.
  3. Symbols The linked article covers four main symbols: The swastika, the Symbol of Ahimsa, the Jain emblem, the Jain flag, and it briefly mentions the "Om" symbol. All five of them need covered, though with a LOT less detail than there.
  4. Reception I think that some of the actual criticism needs mentioned here; you can't really link to an article on criticism of Jainism, then only say good things about it. That said, this is not the place to attack Jainism. Obviously. Something along the lines of Christianity#Criticism_and_apologetics, which would certainly be the ideal, though I know writing something like that would make my brain hurt. This is probably the hardest task for any article on a religion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that the rest of the article won't need much work, so Part III of the review shouldn't be too bad. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look now and suggest further changes (if needed) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Adam Cuerden and Capankajsmilyo - Hi, I have two quick comments about the article. There are several instances of WP:CITEKILL in here. Also, the introduction is longer than four paragraphs so this needs to be fixed too per WP:LEAD. Besides that, great job with the article! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: closing review page, since it has been abandoned, and putting the nomination back into the reviewing pool. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 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.

Numbers

This side says, there are 6-7 million Jain, while the link directly behind the number says, it's only 4.2 million, which is a significant difference.

Does anyone know, where the 6-7 million number comes from or has additional sources other then "Pew Research Center, 2012" to support 4.2 million  

Here is an exact number: 4,451,753 Jains in India 2011, according to 2011 census (numbers released only in 2016)[1]. I would estimate about 160,000 in North America, about 20,000 in the U.K, about 14,000 in Kenya area[2] and some in Belgium, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Nepal, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Australia etc. Thus the number should be about a minimum of 4.6 million, perhaps a maximum of 4.9 million.

Malaiya (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, notice this issue too, @Pratyk321:.--Nizil (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ C-1 Population By Religious Community (excel sheet)
  2. ^ Can Jainism Survive in 21st Century?, Sulekh Chand Jain and Yashwant K. Malaiya, JAINA 2011 Digest, pp. 125-128.

Some points on improvement

  • Prayers: It needs expansion as it misses several types of other prayers like Stavanas and Sajjhayas.
  • Rituals: There should be specific mention of rituals if different branches such as Swetambara do Ashtaprakari Puja while Digambara do not perform it and prefers Abhisheka. Sthanakvasi sect oppose it.
  • Pilgrimage: It says pilgrim sites are categorized in Siddhakshetra, Atishayakshetra etc. but it is only true for Digambara sites. Swetambara sites are not classified as such. The places associated with Kalyanaka of Tirthankara are sometimes noted as Kalyanaka Tirtha. Though specific refs needed to add this.
  • Monastcism: some addition needed on difference in monks within subsects.
  • Branches: There is a paragraph on scism which is Digambara point of view on scism. Swetambara pov is also needed. This paragraph should be shortened. Add some info on subsects too. An image of sects/subsects is good and concise representation.
Info about sebsects added. Ref cleanup needed.--Nizil (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Jain literature: It does not mention much about literature of Svetambara. It also focuses mostly on texts from South India and does not include texts from other parts of India. It should also include texts in local languages like Gujarati and Rajasthani too apart from Sanskrit, Prakrit and Tamil.
  • Art/Architecture: This section needs too much work. I think this should first include 2D arts likes paintings, manuscripts, tirthpatas, symbols etc. followed by 3D arts like sculptures and temples. In sculptures, tirthankara idols, deva idols followed by other idols. This includes specific iconography and differences in iconography among sects. It should followed by other types of sculptures like footprints and beds. At last it should follow temple architecture starting with caves, early temples and monasteries, later temples. It should mention all major temple group sites (like Palitana, Girnar, Shikharji, Dilwara etc) of both sects and sites important in context of architecture.
  • History: History is unclear on how Jainism spread all over India. In Origin, there is undue preference is given to writing of Radhkrishnan who was politician and philosopher. There should be more focus on opinions of historians and archeology. There is little info on what was happening between 9th to 12th century. Royal petronage lists mostly names of kings who petronized Jains. Decline section is good and summarizes all critical points. In general, the section should focus on what happened to Jains and Jainism over time, century after century.
Origin section: Some info added. Quotes removed. Need more info.--Nizil (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Philosophy: This section is well covered but should be bit consolidated.
  • Community: This section focuses only on geographical distribution. These should be some info on social structure among Jains too, like castes.
  • Symbols: A lot of symbols are missing and the section should be turned into prose. For example, Siddhachakra and auspicious dreams are not mentioned.

General: My feeling is that the article focuses more on Digambara side. Like in statue section, no Swetambara image is presented. There should be clear indication of differences of practices, rituals, beliefs and other things between two major sects and other sub-sects. Some information should be provided in context of geographical differences too.

Ordering of sections should be again considered. Practices placed between philosophical topics is not good.

In all, I appreciate the hard work to bring this article to such a high level and hope that it reaches level of FA. Keep working and make this possible. Regards and lots of praise, --Nizil (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pratyk321:. I just like to bring notice to above points I suggested for improvement as you are working to improve the article.--Nizil (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nizil I'll try to fix these issue ASAP. In community section, I'll try improve community section. however, Jains don't believe in caste system. Did you mean shwetambar, terapanth, sthanak wasi, murtipujak, digambar, bispanth, sarak etc.??--User:Pratyk321 (talk)
I do agree with you that technically Jains do not have caste hierarchy. Here I am talking about endogamus groups (which somewhat work same as caste) like Shrimal, Oswal, Jaiswal, Porwad, Navnat. Some lines about such groups and community structure would be helpful. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright Nizil, I'll make the necessary edits. Thanks & Regards--User:Pratyk321 (talk)
  • A section of impact of Jainism on Indian thaught, philosophy, culture and languages would be very helpful.--Nizil (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo:, you are most active writer on Jainism nowadays and you nominated the article for GA. Your efforts have taken the article to this high level which I appreciate a lot. Please engage, discuss and improve the article. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Reordering

Current structure is as follows:

  1. 1 Main teachings
    1. 1.1 Non-violence (ahimsa)
    2. 1.2 Non-absolutism
    3. 1.3 Non-attachment
  1. 2 Jain Ethics and Five Main Vows
  1. 3 Practices
    1. 3.1 Vegetarianism
    2. 3.2 Fasting
    3. 3.3 Prayers
    4. 3.4 Meditation
    5. 3.5 Festivals
    6. 3.6 Rituals
    7. 3.7 Pilgrimages
    8. 3.8 Monasticism
  1. 4 Philosophy
    1. 4.1 Dravya (Substance)
      1. 4.1.1 Jīva (soul)
      2. 4.1.2 Ajīva (Non-Soul)
    1. 4.2 Tattva (Reality)
    2. 4.3 Soul and Karma
    3. 4.4 Vitalism
    4. 4.5 Cosmology
    5. 4.6 Epistemology
    6. 4.7 Agamas
    7. 4.8 Kashaya (Passions)
  1. 5 Liberation and Godhood
    1. 5.1 The Path to Liberation
    2. 5.2 Stages on the Path
    3. 5.3 God
  1. 6 History
    1. 6.1 Origins
    2. 6.2 Royal patronage
    3. 6.3 Decline
  1. 7 Community
  2. 8 Schools and branches
  3. 9 Jain literature
  4. 10 Art and architecture
    1. 10.1 Temples
    2. 10.2 Statues and sculptures
    3. 10.3 Symbols
  1. 11 Reception
  2. 12 See also
  3. 13 References
    1. 13.1 Citations
    2. 13.2 Sources
  1. 14 External links
I propose same restructuring in them. #3:Practises should be moved between #5 and #6 as #1-5 except #3 deals with philosophical/belifs aspect of Jainism. Practises after that will not interrupt one reading philosphy of Jainism. #8 Schools and Branches should be better placed after #6 History as it is also somewhat historical aspect of Jainism followed by #7 community which discuss about modern community/geographical distribution and social composition of Jains. Please give your opinion on reordering.--Nizil (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledgement Nizil Shah, the reorder proposal looks good to me. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jainism/GA6. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shaded0 (talk · contribs) 15:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I will try and review this article over the next few days. Please let me know @Capankajsmilyo: your availability on this over the next week or two and I can help you walk through through the GA process.

The first thing to resolve on this would be the unresolved cleanup and maintenance tags for expansion and in the "Reception" section with the tag specifically on Neutrality. Please take a look at addressing these first. I'll start on reviewing first for formatting, manual of style, sources, images, etc. before reviewing content (as I have time for this). Thanks. Shaded0 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I noticed several one-sentence paragraphs currently in the article such as in Temples and Jain literature. Can these be merged or reorganized to make the article less choppy?

I guess the tags have been resolved. Still I haven't removed them for you/GA reviewer to confirm. If you could be a little specific on temples section, Ill be happy to try n resolve it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist: is making some edits based on the entri on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Jainism, so I will let him finish on these edits before looking at the choppiness issue and give some examples on this. I also will include the GA template below here and give some more guidelines on structure or content that needs to be looked at. Make sure any info included in the lead is cited or included somewhere within the article (I can also check and verify on this).

I reorganized a few things in the lead to make it flow in separate paragraphs around belief and community. A couple things in the lead that I wasn't able to find cited somewhere in the article. Can you verify this?

"In the current era, this started with Rishabhdeva and concluded with Mahavira."

This can be verified in the God subsection of Liberation and Godhood. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Namokar Mantra is the most common and basic prayer in Jainism." -- mentioned later but does not include info on prevalence

 Done-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, much of the info in "Practices" is not mentioned in the lead. Can you add a couple sentences to the lead summary on this?

For images, can you verify that this File:SamanathamAA.jpg has a permission on it or replace it with one that does (creative commons, etc.). Otherwise, images look good for use rationales. Some of these look to be "own work" when they should probably instead be listed under public domain. Take a look at the image I noted and see if it can be replaced/modified with a use rationale. See also, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy

 Done -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sections

Main principles -- Good

Jain ethics and Five Main Vows -- Good

Practices --

  • This could be expanded upon, Vegetarianism seems critical to Jainism but is only discussed in brief, could use some other info on diet.
  • Fasting and Prayers could also use some extra info for these subsections
  • Meditation, seems good. Same with Festivals, Rituals, Pilgrimages, Monasticism

Philosophy --

  • Replace Ajīva ("Non-Soul") with prose
  • Otherwise mostly seems good, a lot of detail on this, but seems good. Verifying on the info may require someone more of an expert on this, but style as well as use of sources looks fine besides the point above.

Liberation and Godhood --

  • The Path to Liberation - this could be switched to prose to read better, currently does not flow very well with list with one sentence then another blockquote.
  • Similar with Stages on the Path, I would probably rearrange the prose here to be above the table with explanations if possible.
  • God subsection is fine

History --

  • Origins - this section includes a bit too many blockquotes, which interrupts the flow quite a bit. I have removed what I think is reasonable, and left the first one of these, as well as the  Dr. Heinrich Zimmer quote. Additionally, Vardhamana Mahāvīra and Parshvanatha mentions should both be expanded upon if there is notable sourced info. I have left comments in-line with where there could be more info here. I have also left a comment on the  Dr. Heinrich Zimmer quote that is needs more context or preface to include this and flow well with the previous paragraphs. Last paragraph here looks fine.
  • Expansion - I modified the subheading of this to be more clear of the development and expansion of the religion. This section could use more focus to draw attention to timelines. For example, the first sentence of this paragraph draws attention to the city which I found as confusing. Maybe instead draw more emphasis to the empires and dynasties of this period (as well as possibly in the subheadings defining timelines for each of these subsections.

"The ancient city Pithunda, capital of Kalinga (modern Odisha), is described in the Jain text Uttaradhyana Sutra as an important centre at the time of Mahāvīra, and was frequented by merchants from Champa.[150] Rishabhanatha, the first tirthankara, was revered and worshiped in Pithunda and was known as the Kalinga Jina. Mahapadma Nanda (c. 450 – 362 BCE) conquered Kalinga and took a statue of Rishabha from Pithunda to his capital in Magadha. Jainism is said to have flourished under the Nanda Empire.[151]"

  • Expansion - good

Community -- Sources and list looks good. May be better suited as prose per MoS.

Schools and branches -- A couple sort paragraphs here that could be addressed.

Jain literature -- Here there are also a few short-ish paragraphs that could be expanded upon. Sources and images look good.

Art and architecture -- Unaddressed tag here - page needed.

"A Jain temple, Derasar or Basadi is a place of worship for Jains. Jain temples are built with various architectural designs, [page needed] but there are mainly two type of Jain temples: Shikar-bandhi Jain temple (one with a dome), and Ghar Jain temple (Jain house temple – one without a dome)."

Few other short paragraphs, including the below..

"The 8th century Kazhugumalai temple marks the revival of Jainism in South India."

Reception -- okay, could use more work.

GA Template Pass/Fail

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: - prose is inconsistent in places, needs some cleanup still in some of the sections towards the bottom. Points I have also made above.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: - could still use some expansion with practices
  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:
    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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: - checked https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ for webpages, unable to verify book sources.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): - seems fine, although very lengthy article
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comment

  • The prose quality is poor, the article has POV and "failed verification" issues in some sections. I have started a discussion on the talk page about this issue. Other issues in this article mirror those mentioned by two other editors in another article nominated by Capankajsmilyo, which may be found here. I suggest the article be not promoted for now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, thanks for taking the time to comment on this review. I noted the prose issues, but I think your points raised in the other discussion thread as well as OR is enough to merit some further review on this. I appreciate you also pulling from the cited sources and reviewing the same info on this - which I did not have access to. I think it should therefore get some further revising to get it up to par for POV and the points mentioned by you and myself above. Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jainism. 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:

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) 13:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

A lot of sources have been added to the article recently. They may not be WP:RS. Someone would need to verify that they adhere to WP:RS guidelines. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

POV tag

Some sections are poorly written and do not meet NPOV criterion. For example the discussion about anekantavada needs work to make it compliant with NPOV guidelines. Please see this section for WP:RS to identify the issues and some help to do so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

OR tag

The section on Ahimsa in the current version of this article, attributes to pages 161-163 of Paul Dundas book, stuff it doesn't state. It is also not consistent with mainstream Jain texts. The section is not summarizing the Ahimsa taught in canons/secondary literature of Jainism, it is stating what is taught in some Buddhist and most Hindu texts. Yes, after the 12th century Muslim-Jain violence, some Jain scholars such as Jinadatta Suri adopted the Ahimsa-related views of their Hindu/Buddhists neighbors, and Paul Dundas mentions those views (e.g. violence in self defense is okay, a "just war" can be a form of salvation). See, for example, the first 11 sentences on page 163 of Dundas. However, as Dundas explains, this view in Jainism is rare! In wikipedia, we don't present "rare / fringe" views as the mainstream, and suppress the "mainstream" view. I suggest a source check on rest of the article. (If someone does not have access to the Dundas book, please contact me, I have a paper copy). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: do you see support anywhere on Sethia's page 166-167 for "anekantavada influenced Mahatama Gandhi" etc? if so, where? I see Sethia's critique of Kulke and Rothermund paragraph and the misunderstanding about Mahavira/Buddha/Jainism/Gandhi on those pages and the footnotes therein? Most of the first para of this section doesn't seem to be supported by pages 166-167. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate sub-section

Asceticism and monasticism is one and a same thing. It should be merged. Further, is it a practice or principle? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Asceticism refers to the practice or goal of abstinence from worldly pleasures, withdrawal from the world, and a frugal lifestyle.

Monasticism refers to a social role/occupation as a monk or nun, and living in monastic communities with fellow monks and nuns. Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
How does that differ in Jainism context Dimadick -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo:, Dimadick is right. In Jainism context, this means asceticism section describes the belief, theosophy and principles of asceticism. The monasticism section needs to discuss the sociology/community of monks and nuns. I plan to expand that section with RS, unless some other kind editor saves me the effort. A quick example would be the predominance of nun community only in Svetambara sect (3:1+ ratio of nuns:monks), but the historically reverse or negligible presence of nuns in Digambara sect. Another would be the legend about Bhadrabahu and migration of monastic community into South India, and the consequent historic split in organization. Etc, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of image

Ms Sarah Welch please read the inscription on statue you have just labelled as of Mahavira. It clearly reads Srimandhar Swami. Your efforts to clean up articles and add sources is appreciated, but please avoid misrepresentation and POV pushing. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sfn, year of publication and WP:V issues

@Capankajsmilyo: Please be careful in merging two sources, published in different years. Merging is good, if and only if the page numbers are same in both years. But, sometimes the page numbers are different. If so, later WP:V efforts may make the alleged support to appear misrepresentation and fraudulent. In recent days, I have already fixed several such failed verification problems, from possible good faith edits long ago. Please do check the same book title published in different years before you continue your high speed merging of sources or changing year of publication for "sfn" conversions, such as this. I am not going to keep re-checking and cleaning up what you do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please check the link and second page of book in link. Also please be careful while adding more sources. The book link is same and it reads date as 2009. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: What? See the edit diff link I gave above again. 2009 book has a google book ID = JmRlAgAAQBAJ, while the 2013 book ID = ajAEBAAAQBAJ. Could you clarify what you mean please, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Check this. It says 2009 in content. Please explain your comments. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This shows up as 2013, but clicking it reverts to the 2009 version. Strange. In some versions, I see page numbers and in some I don't. Probably has to do with how google book chooses to display copyrighted works. I suggest we leave both 2009 and 2013 versions in the sources section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please give reasons for considering the two as different books. Same title, author, publisher, content, isbn and cover does not in any way represent two different books, just because google gives some wrong description. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Also please clarify why you consider I3gAAwAAQBAJ, ajAEBAAAQBAJ, JmRlAgAAQBAJ as different. They look duplicates to me. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo: I have no idea how Google links various versions of its scans. As I said above, "Merging is good, if and only if the page numbers are same in both"; else we need to list both sources. If you have already checked the two versions and verified that the summary is on the same page(s) in both versions, just mention it in your edit summary, "merge two sources, after verifying the pages" or something similar. Don't merge unless you have done the WP:V check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of deprecated templates

{{double image}} is a deprecated template. Ms Sarah Welch please have a look at the template page. I think it should be replaced with {{Multiple image}} as suggested. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead, please change it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Useful links

Outside India

This article says that "Outside India" and then lists places where Jain communities can be found. It lists Canada, Europe and goes on to list the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom might have voted to leave the European Union, but it is still in Europe, so this article did not need to go on and list the United Kingdom here (it would have done had the term "mainland Europe" been used). Vorbee (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jainism/GA7. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 00:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. I have already looked it over several times and it appears to be a promising candidate. I see that it was formerly a GA article, but was delisted (although, actually, I noticed that, if you check the GA articles list for "Philosophy and religion," it is still on the list; apparently someone forgot to remove it.) I have nominated a number of articles in this category, including Inanna, Enlil, Anunnaki, Athena, and Pythagoras and there are quite a few more articles I am working on that are still yet to come, so I thought I would do my duty and review some articles, since the backlog seems to be fairly long and still growing. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: This review is yours to complete, but as the article stands, I do not see how it can pass. There are severe issues with the prose, chiefly resulting from it being written from a Jain point of view, rather than an independent one. Even the first sentence is a problem; the relative antiquity of Hinduism and Jainism is certainly not that clear cut. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I have been looking back through the past GA reviews for this article and I noticed that many of the criticisms that were brought up in them have still not been addressed. I was planning on failing the article already based on that fact alone, but I appreciate your input on the state of the article. I strongly recommend that the nominator read through all the previous GA reviews (all six of them!) and implement the changes suggested in them before attempting to renominate this article again. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I support a fail, or a voluntary withdraw. Yep, the lead sentence is reflective of the problem. The article has improved quite a bit since the last rejections. Still it is a long way to go before it is GA-nom ready. Particularly the Beliefs and philosophy section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

IVC

Anons (almost certainly socks of User:Atmnn) have been repeatedly inserting this statement to the lead: Jainism has "roots from the Indus Valley Civilization, reflecting native (pre-Vedic) spirituality prior to the Indo-Aryan migration into India".

As mentioned by Kashmiri in this edit, this is not a unanimously-accepted theory, and doesn't belong in lead. Also, the statement being added by Atmnn's socks is a poor synthesis of sources. @Joshua Jonathan: -- you've been active at Indus Valley Civilisation -- maybe you can comment on the accuracy of the statement being added by the anons. utcursch | talk 20:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Just checked Gerald James Larson's book, where over pages 27-28, he writes, "There is some evidence that Jain traditions may be even older than the Buddhist traditions, possibly going back to the time of the Indus valley civilization, and that Vardhamana rather than being a 'founder' per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition." That does not support the hopping IP edit warrior's content contribution, "with its roots from the Indus Valley Civilization, reflecting native (pre-Vedic) spirituality prior to the Indo-Aryan migration into India." We can reword it and out it somewhere in the main article, but none of this "some evidence" and "possibly" and etc belongs as or in the lead sentences of this main article on Jainism. I have also checked the second source edited by Joel Beversluis. The article on Jainism is chapter 10. It starts on page 79. Its author is "Amar T. Salgia, Founding member of Young Jains of America", who seems to have extracted parts of it from a source by NP Jain. The Salgia article is a WP:Questionable source. Further, the IPs are again doing OR there, because the summary they add isn't supported by this Salgia source either. The current article already summarizes the Risabhanatha part and the prehistoric part mentioned by Salgia, more clearly with the "millions of years ago in Jain tradition". I support your reverts, and given the persistence of the IPs perhaps a close watch on this and other Jainism articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the 2nd source by Saglia makes quite a few fringe claims without citing any sources/evidence for those claims, in this book published by New World Library. For example, "Jainism's influence can be traced to other lands like Greece and Israel", "Jainism offers a path guaranteeing eternal peace and happiness" and so on. This Saglia source should not be used in any Jainism-related wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Begging of alms

I have removed this phrase 'begging for alms and collecting food but' because :-

  • Monks in Digambara tradiion don't beg and collect food.
  • The aim of travelling in both the sects is not food.
  • These details should appear in different section and not under festivals.

- Nimit (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

2001:14BA:3F0:7100:42B:8AB2:C495:2638 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Kundakundakunda

User now blocked as a sockpuppet - nothing to see here, really...

@Begoon:00:52, 1 June 2019‎ Begoon talk contribs‎ 184,063 bytes +95‎ I don't see much problem with that, apart from the unexplained content removals, which I've restored. Next time you'd like to make fundamental changes to an article please discuss them on the talk page and get consensus, because edit-warring is disruptive, as has been explained to you, and is very likely to get you sanctioned if it continues to be a pattern. Thank you. undo Kundakundakunda (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why you posted this. If it's supposed to be some indication that I agree with the edits you have made to this page then let me be clear what happened:
  • You removed the flag, and edit-warred over it when asked to discuss
  • You replaced it with a book illustration, which I removed as a copyright violation
  • You added the book illustration elsewhere, pointily. I removed it
  • You replaced that with a different book illustration which you said was user-created, so I removed that as irrelevant
  • You replaced it with another book illustration and removed some content.
  • I replaced the content you had removed, but left the last book, on good-faith that it might be universally acceptable
  • When it subsequently turned out that other editors disagreed about the last book I supported its removal here
How dare you attempt to imply that any part of me combating your disruptive edit-warring over the flag/books was support for your other content changes? I will not tolerate any more of this disruption - continue it and you will be blocked. Your behaviour, attitude and actions, and attempts to 'game' the system are painfully obvious, juvenile and an utter disgrace to you - which is particularly ironic, given the content you want to edit. Stop it immediately - there will be no more warnings. -- Begoon 20:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Kundakundakunda: Your edits, your editing warring, and your misrepresentations are getting disruptive. Please stop. The lead must reflect the main article per our WP:LEAD guidelines. The main article and the peer-reviewed scholarly sources describe and discuss "Jainism as an Indian religion". See, for example, the main article in Encyclopaedia Britannica on Jainism. Your attempt to replace "Indian religion" with terms such as "universal" and "dharmic" in the lead reminds me of the systematic disruptions by now banned User:Realphi, whose edits we discussed in the past. The phrase "universal religion" is uncommon and problematic. Cornelis Tiele proposed this idea in the 19th-century, but from the little he understood 150 years ago of the Indian religions, he called Jainism to be a minor sect of Brahmanism/Hinduism and put it into a special sub-category of Hinduism and related groupings of his. Scholars after Tiele, starting with George Galloway around 1920, have disputed the Tiele's proposals for good reasons and it is really not significant enough for this article. It is strange for you to edit war over "universal" etc in the lead, when the main article never discusses the same at all. Tiele's work is also very old, raising WP:HISTRS issues. Your comments and hostility against Begoon (or other editors/admins above) are not helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Jain Flag as first Info Box

Jain Flag is not at all universally accepted. It was introduced on Jainism wikipedia page in 2017. So, it is fairly new phenomenon from India. It should not be used to represent 2,500 year old religion that is also practiced in USA and UK. They were not represented in the design of the flag. Also, not all jain sects were consulted for the design of the flag. It should be replaced by a book conver which is accepted by all the sects as any other image will not be accepted by all the sects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundakundakunda (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kundakundakunda: Thanks for bringing attention to it. According to Jainpedia: The origin of the flag is difficult to pin down but it has become fairly widespread since the late 20th century. It is frequently seen flying from the top of temples and is commonly paraded in the processions that are elements of Jain festivals. It could have an ancestor in the banner – dhavja – which is one of the auspicious dreams and, as such, is holy. The banner and other dreams are listed in the Śvetāmbara scripture called the Kalpa-sūtra, which is generally considered to date back to at least the 5th century CE. So usage is widespread since late 20th century and is not "introduced on Jainism Wikipedia in 2017" or "fairly new phenomenon" as you claimed. Should it be included in infobox or not is a different question. I can not claim that it is universally accepted btw. I request others for their input. Jain Prateek Chihna (File:Jain Prateek Chihna.svg) symbol is agreed by all sects in 1974 which could serve as a replacement if needed.-Nizil (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: -Nizil (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nizil. Kundakundakunda: Do you have sources on the flag, which state something different than those provided by Nizil? Let us not add the image of a book cover from Digambara or another sub-tradition, such as those attributed to Kundakunda. A more neutral image would be of a text such as the Tattvarthsutra that is generally accepted by the various subtraditions. Alternatively, an image is not mandatory in infobox, or we could use an NPOV collage after reviewing the appropriate peer-reviewed sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah:, why r u asking SW? She has heavy anti-jain, pro-buddhist, pro-hindu, pro-liberal bias. Who is she to determine what should be the first line? Is she a practising jain? No. Is she aware of ground reality? No. Has she ever visited a Jain temple? No. Does she even personally know a single jain? No. Now, she has completely destroyed my one month effort and you are squarely responsible for it. She is responsible for banning at-least 25 jain wikipedia editors who are already in such a minority. See this link for her reputation, @Begoon: Kundakundakunda (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Kundakundakunda: I have struck out the inappropriate parts of your comments. If you have constructive replies to the comments and questions of Nizil and I, that would be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Kundakundakunda, throwing around personal insults is not a good look. You tried the same "What do you know about Jainism, have you ever been in a Jain temple" shtick with me when you didn't think you were getting your own way, and it was as unwelcome, petulant and childish then as it is now. Reactions like that, and the huge amount of obstinate edit-warring you have done over this will not help you to get the result you want.

Now, to the point. If neither the flag nor the book are acceptable as "universally accepted" then we're left with the book suggested by Sarah Welch, a symbol that everyone can be comfortable with, or no image at all. Given the disagreements I'd be inclined to go with no image until something is suggested that doesn't meet with any genuine objections. If nothing is, then that's fine too - the infobox doesn't have to have an image, particularly if no particular image can be agreed upon as properly representative. -- Begoon 18:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon:, The flag issue was settled and I accepted it. But did you notice, how sw completely changed the header without explanation? She also removed a link in the talk page about a discussion about her in an internet discussion page as "inappropriate". How is that inappropriate? Kundakundakunda (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop personalising issues. Stick to reasoned discussion about content with reliable sources. Anything else will be ignored (at least by me) I really don't recommend continuing to be disruptive here, you've done enough of that already and I'm pretty bored with it. -- Begoon 19:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I had suggested File:Jain Prateek Chihna.svg in infobox as it is a representative symbol accepted by all Jain traditions in 1974. The image is used in navbox so it might look duplication. I am not in favour of placing any book cover image in the infobox because it might be not acceptable to all traditions. Apart from Tatvarthasutra suggested by MSW, Saman Suttam is another text recognised by all Jain sects. Book covers change according to editions.-07:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizil Shah (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Nizil Shah, to avoid the duplication you are rightly concerned about I added a parameter to the navbox {{Jainism}}, here. If it's called with |hideimage=yes it will now omit the image. To get an idea what that would look like here I made this test edit to look at. Perhaps the image size needs reduction, and it needs a description/alt - but there it is to look at, and for comment/discussion anyway. -- Begoon 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: and @Ms Sarah Welch:. The Prateek Chihna symbol looks OK and acceptable to all. Thanks for test edit and solving duplication problem. The image with description is already in use in the article. I am in favour of using it in infobox. The symbol was used on reverse of the commemorative coin as well as postage stamps released by the Government of India in 2001 on 2600th Birth Anniversary (Janma Kalyanaka) of Mahavira. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We should avoid duplicate images. If the infobox is redundant or not telling much, please consider removing it. Our main articles on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc do without that lead infobox. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think I prefer that idea. It seems to work ok at Christianity and Islam - the first two I checked, and there's not really much of importance in the infobox here. As a nice little bonus it gets around a fussy little problem I was having trying to get infobox and navbox to line up properly (caused by an odd decision by the designers of Infobox:religion to hardcode a width of 24em). So, if Nizil Shah is happy with that too, I think we can remove the infobox and retain just the navbox (with image). -- Begoon 10:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the infobox does not provide much info either. So nothing to loose. I am ok with removal. -Nizil (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok,  Done with this edit. Thank you. -- Begoon 11:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Arihant Dharma

IP, please subscribe to bold, revert, discuss cycle. The onus is on you to gain consensus for your edits. Please stop edit warring. El_C 17:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Systematic Misunderstanding

How to do deal with systematic misunderstanding? For example: "According to Digambara Jains, there are seven tattvas, while Śvētāmbaras believe in nine tattvas". The citation is to a western scholar. This is limited understanding. Both Digambara and Śvētāmbaras accept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattvartha_Sutra which states seven tattvas. However NavTattva another text that Śvētāmbaras follows talk about Nine tattvas. The difference is perspective. Punya and Paap are specifically taken out from under ashrav as "Abhyuday Karan" that is that which indirectly helps with attaining moksha. KUNALKUMARJAIN1986 (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Pilgrimage section

The following sentence is in the article under Pilgrimage: Outside contemporary India, Jain communities built temples in locations such as Nagarparkar, Sindh (Pakistan). However, according to a UNESCO tentative world heritage site application, Nagarparkar was not a "major religious centre or a place of pilgrimage" for Jainism, but it was once an important cultural landscape before "the last remaining Jain community left the area in 1947 at Partition".

Is this long paragraph necessary? The section should cover all major pilgrimage sites and there is no need to explain about one site whether is was major site or not. I propose changing it to: Outside India, Jain communities built temples in locations such as [[Nagarparkar JaῳᾧᾧᾧᾧᾧᾧᾧᾧΑαΒβΓγΔδin Temples|Nagarparkar]] (Pakistan). Other temples outside India can be added to it. Give your opinion.-Nizil (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(
)
Primary symbol of Jainism
Primary symbol of Jainism

Improved to Good Article status by Capankajsmilyo (talk) and Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Capankajsmilyo (talk) at 05:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: --evrik (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The only close comparison shown in Earwig's Copyvio Detector is dharmapedia which seems like a copy of wikipedia and not the other way around. Capankajsmilyo(Talk Infobox assistance) 07:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook really sounds like you're promoting a product. Also, if you're going for the image slot, I would like to know why there's a swastika in the logo? Alternate hooks are needed here. Yoninah (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The hand symbolizes Ahiṃsā, the wheel dharmachakra, the resolve to halt saṃsāra (transmigration)
The hand symbolizes Ahiṃsā, the wheel dharmachakra, the resolve to halt saṃsāra (transmigration)
  • I am suggesting an alterante logo. --evrik (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for ping Yoninah, I have sourced all the content. Swastika is a religious symbol in Indic religions including Jainism. The image depicted is an image of universe in Jain cosmology. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Why am I unsurprised to see this? You have not sourced the hooks, Capankajsmilyo. The claim about ahimsa is only sourced with respect to Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism; no other comparison is made. The claim ascetism is with respect to all major Indian religions. Both your hooks imply these are true globally; the sources say no such thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought the hooks were okay. Do you have an issue with the hooks, or the sourcing? --evrik (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • My issue is with the hooks. They are not hooky. In the past we have run short "explanations" as a hook, but both of these are too long. If that swastika image is running, I'm sure a terrific hook could be written around that. The nominator needs to think about the worldwide audience looking at this, not the small circle of Indian readers who know what Jainism is about. Yoninah (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • They are also unsupported by both the article text and the sources. We cannot run those. There's any number of interesting hooks that can be written here; why must we try for something so grandiose? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt0a ... that Jainism is an ancient Indian religion that has principles of non-violence and believes that truth and reality always have more than one aspect?
  • ALT1a:... that Jainism is an ancient Indian religion that has an ascetic tradition where monks and nuns completely renounce property and social relations, own nothing and are attached to no one?

Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • How is this any different from the original hooks? Hooks are supposed to "reel" readers in, not put them to sleep. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed some of the superlatives. --evrik (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ??? This article is over 126,000 bytes and this is all we can come up with? I'd like to look at it tomorrow to see if something else can be suggested. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt3 that Mahatma Gandhi, The leader of the campaign for Indian independence, was greatly influenced by an ancient Indian religion, Jainism.[1]
  • Alt4 that Jainism is an ancient Indian religion which states that truth and reality are complex and always have multiple aspects.[2]
  • Alt5 that nonviolence is highest ethical duty in Jainism, an ancient Indan religion.[3]
  • Alt6 that Jainism is an ancient Indian religion in which monks and nuns completely renounce property and social relations, own nothing and are attached to no one.[4][5]
  • Alt7 that Jainism has had the strongest ascetic tradition of the major Indian religions.[6][7][8]

Are these good, or should I look for some more? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Capankajsmilyo: would you please source those here so we don't have to look for them? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik and Yoninah: Are the new hooks good? I was about to promote ALT5 in the image slot but I realized that this still needs a re-tick. The image alt text I was going to use is below this comment in hidden text. I linked to Jain symbols b/c of the question about the presence of the swastika. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Squirrel Conspiracy: you can't be serious. None of the alts remotely resembles a "hook", especially for the image slot where we try to run good hooks. I haven't had time to suggest other hooks yet. Yoninah (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Alt4 is workable. Can we tweak it? --evrik (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Evrik: if you insist, but not in the image slot. I don't think the nominator has an idea of how to write a hook, and if you don't want to help him, so be it. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: I'm completely serious. ALT5 felt ... topical ... at the moment, and I don't see why the image can't run. It's not solely your decision to make. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Squirrel Conspiracy: I keep getting pinged here, so I keep answering. I'm too tired to think of another hook now and if you're building the set, go ahead and do what you think best. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(←) Alright, I've got a short and punchy one:

@Evrik:, does that work for you? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • OK, I came by to promote this. This sentence in the article containing the hook fact needs an inline cite: holding that the universe was never created, and will exist forever. I believe the cite is footnote 14. However, the language the universe was never created is misleading; the source is saying that no god created it, not that it wasn't created at all. Since we're here, we must have been created, no? I am not able to access footnote 31; maybe that says more about this idea. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, maybe the wording should be the universe was not created? That would work. We still need an inline cite. Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo and The Squirrel Conspiracy: anyone have the citation? --evrik (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
evrik I got it off Google (the preview of the book contained the pages cited. Long p. 83 says "In Jainism, as well as Hinduism and Buddhism, one encounters a universe without beginning or end. According to this cosmology, we have all been undergoing a process of birth, life, death, and rebirth since time without beginning." That's all the coverage of that topic, it then goes on into a discussion about Karma and the soul for the rest of the three pages cited. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • evrik I added the inline cite to the sentence in the article that confirms ALT8a (von Glasenapp, 1925, p. 241). Yoninah (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the help everyone. The latest hook looks perfect. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
We need your approval tick, evrik. Yoninah (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rudolph & Rudolph 1984, p. 171.
  2. ^ Charitrapragya 2004, pp. 75–79.
  3. ^ Vijay K. Jain 2012, p. 33.
  4. ^ Natubhai Shah 2004, p. 112.
  5. ^ Long 2009, p. 109.
  6. ^ Cort 2001a, pp. 118–122.
  7. ^ Qvarnström 2003, p. 113.
  8. ^ Qvarnström 2003, pp. 169–174, 178–198 with footnotes.
  9. ^ Long 2013, pp. 83–85.
  10. ^ von Glasenapp 1925, pp. 241–242.

Recent additions to lead section

Capankajsmilyo: I'm a bit concerned about the continuing instability, and especially the repeated additions to the lead section, including new citations. If the citations are at all important, they should be moved to the article body and formatted like the rest. The lead is no place for "new" concepts, as it is purely meant as a summary of the rest of the article. I think this needs urgent attention, or it'll continue to degrade the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Was one of these the 3rd sentence? Now: "Jainism is transtheistic and forecasts that universe evolves without violating law of substance dualism,[2] auto executed through the middle ground between principles of parallelism and interactionism.[3]". That's just bizarre in a GA, & seems not very strongly sourced. Suggest removal or burial lower down, with some expansion to clarify. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, Johnbod - fixed. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, both. I think it will be necessary to keep a careful eye on the lead section in particular. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agamas

Seems weird not have a link for Agamas in the first paragraph. Srnec (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Jain dharma, not an "ism".

Thr Jain dharma is not a dead tradition. It has followers all over the world. Therefore, to call it anything other than its own name is offensive to its adherents. The suffix of "ism" is especially demeaning. The definition of ism in the Merriam Webster dictionary is a distinctive practice or political ideology or "an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief". For the same reason that we do say Christianism or Islamism, we CANNOT say Jainism, or Hinduism for that matter. Shahtirth94 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to replace this page with a disambiguation page

As many people have noticed, there is strong fundamental disagreement between digambara sect and shwetambara sect about first few lines of the article. Some members of each sect, rightly or wrongly, hates other group so much that they consider each other's interpretation as vandalism. Fortunately, and unlike the physical world, there is an easy solution to this problem: convert Jainism page to disambiguation page, which I am proposing here. Vijaydoshi7 (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Vijaydoshi7, What are you proposing that the new title for the current content should be then? Schazjmd (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Schazjmd, material of current article should go into to digambara and shwetambara articles depending on to which sect it is applicable to. Eg Five vows is digambara concept while three principles is shwetambara concept. Vijaydoshi7 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod below. There are already articles for each sect, plus one for Jain schools and branches which also addresses them; there needs to be one overarching Jainism article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Schazjmd, what you are saying is good theoretically, but practically it doesn't give justification to jainism article because two sects are totally opposite of each other: One sect is the most liberal religion in the world while the other one is the most conservative. Vijaydoshi7 (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose For one thing, this could be argued to be a WP:CONTENTFORK, and we certainly need an article on the religion as a whole. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no logical argument in favour of disamb the article. The topic encompass both sects and there is enough overlapping religious concepts between both sects.-Nizil (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are many religions with diverse sects. That doesn't mean we don't have a main article for the religion that encompasses them all. For example, Christianity and Islam. --Thinker78 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: I've checkuser blocked Vijaydoshi7.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Jains redirects to Jainism

Isn't Jains supposed to be the population of Jains Doremon764 (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How many Jains?

The article currently asserts that there are 4-5 million, and 4-12 million. Can we clarify this important aspect, with whatever degree of certainty is valid? Onanoff (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is still there. I just came across this:
"The religion has between four and five million followers, known as Jains, who reside mostly in India. Outside India, some of the largest communities are in Canada, Europe, and the United States, with Japan hosting a fast-growing community of converts. Major festivals include Paryushana and Das Lakshana, Ashtanika, Mahavir Janma Kalyanak, Akshaya Tritiya, and Dipawali. Estimates for the population of Jains differ from just over four million to twelve million."
Can we find an authoritative source for an authoritative population range? Wkussmaul (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Overwhelming majority of them are in India. According to 2011 census, the Jain population in India was 4,451,753.[1] I would add about 5% for the past 10 years. About 150,000 live in USA who are about 1/3 of the overseas Jains[2]. That makes the estimate about 5 million. There is no evidence it is significantly higher than that.Malaiya (talk)
  1. ^ C-01 Annexure: Details of sects/beliefs/religions clubbed under specific religious community (Excel sheets)
  2. ^ Can Jainism Survive in 21st Century?

"forecasts"

if this is Indian English, perhaps a link to a dictionary would be helpful for readers who do not know Indian English. Otherwise, it should probably be "teaches" or "maintains" or some such. --142.163.195.93 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

World's oldest religion

Is Jainism really the world's oldest religion? Isn't at least Hinduism older? Misinformation should not be tolerated in something considered a "good article".

Remaining in the article is this edit, made by User:Rizhwickh who is now topic banned from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jainism/Archive_3&oldid=1142915498"