Talk:Mallinatha/Archive 1

Untitled
Please verify the source to be sure this English translation is not a copyright violation before moving to Wikisource-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this should be copied and moved, but this article would need to be cleaned up on here afterwards to actually give insight on her life. --queso man 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus and again, it may be best to build consensus for a WP:SANSKRIT and then apply it accordingly. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

–
 * Māllīnātha → Mallinatha
 * Mokṣa (Jainism) → Moksha (Jainism)
 * Śvētāmbara → Svetambara
 * Saṃsāra (Jainism) → Samsara (Jainism)
 * Ādi purāṇa → Adi Purana
 * Kalpa Sūtra → Kalpa Sutra
 * Cīvaka Cintāmaṇi → Civaka Cintamani
 * Vyākhyāprajñapti → Vyakhya prajnapti
 * Mahāvīra (mathematician) → Mahavira (mathematician)
 * Pārśva → Parshwanatha

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Māllīnātha" - 207 hits and "Mallinatha" - 17,300 hits. So Mallinatha is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC) neo (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Māllīnātha → Mallinatha
 * Can we discuss together here all User:Neo.'s diacritic-removing move requests which are listed in Requested moves? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Mokṣa" - 4,15,000 hits. "Moksha" - 37,00,000 hits. So Moksha (Jainism) is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mokṣa (Jainism) → Moksha (Jainism)

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Śvētāmbara" - 9,500 hits and "Svetambara" - 48,500 hits. So Svetambara is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Śvētāmbara → Svetambara

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Saṃsāra" - 1,14,000 hits and "Samsara" 79,30,000 hits So Samsara (Jainism) is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2013
 * Saṃsāra (Jainism) → Samsara (Jainism)

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Ādi purāṇa" - 1,540 hits. Adipurana - 25,700. Adi Purana - 392,000. So Adi Purana is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ādi purāṇa → Adi Purana

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Kalpa Sūtra" - 14,900 hits. Kalpa Sutra - 346,000. "Sūtra" - 493,000. "Sutra" - 50,800,000. So Kalpa Sutra is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kalpa Sūtra → Kalpa Sutra

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Cīvaka Cintāmaṇi" - 1,340 hits and "Civaka Cintamani" - 10,300 hits So Civaka Cintamani is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cīvaka Cintāmaṇi → Civaka Cintamani

As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, Vyākhyāprajñapti - 2,890 hits and Vyakhya prajnapti - 10,600 hits. So Vyakhya prajnapti is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vyākhyāprajñapti → Vyakhya prajnapti

This article was created on 11 November 2004 as Mahavira (mathematician). On 28 December 2010, admin Ruud Koot moved page to current name without any discussion or consensus. As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." As per Google search results, "Mahavira" mathematician - 501,000 hits and for "Mahāvīra" mathematician - 44,000 hits. So Mahavira (mathematician) is primary transliteration. Hence the move is requested. neo (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mahāvīra (mathematician) → Mahavira (mathematician)

This page awas created on 19 August 2005. I am seeing that many pages are created with different spelling and are redirected to this page.  This page itself is moved 3 times. Please see this log. On 22 March 2013 User:The Rahul Jain moved this article to current name without any discussion. As per this policy, "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. A word has a primary transliteration if at least 75% of all references in wider English usage have the same transliteration." Following are google search results to establish primary transliteration. "Parshva" Jainism - 74,100. "Parshwa" Jainism - 68,000. "Parsva" Jainism - 65,500. "Parswa" Jainism - 8,190. "Parshvanath" Jainism - 1,34,000. "Parshvanatha" Jainism - 12,100. "Parshwanath" Jainism - 3,55,000. "Parshwanath" Jainism - 8,220. And finally for the current name, "Pārśva" Jainism - 6,690. It looks "Parshwanath" or "Parshwanatha" is most common spelling in wider usage. Hence the move is requested to Parshwanatha. But please note, current IAST name is far wide off the mark. Also it is necessary to decide article name to settle the issue for once and all. neo (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pārśva → Parshwanatha


 * Oppose: These topics are related to Jainism and almost every important sources related to the topic use IAST. e.g. Jainism: An Indian religion of salvation by Glasenapp, The Jains by Paul Dundas and The Jaina Path of Purification Rahul Jain (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Use non-IAST titles: use of IAST in titles and indeed in the article bodies makes it difficult to search using standard English keyboards and is almost always not the preferred way of rendering the names in English reliable sources. Most of the moves to IAST-based diacritics seem to have been done boldly, without discussion, and are akin to the many failed renaming efforts that have in the past been proposed by nationalist contributors, eg: wanting Ganges as Ganga and India as Bharat. I've no idea what the motivation is in the specific instances listed above but they defy common sense and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support to all. Sitush, could you clarify if that's a support or oppose !vote? Red Slash 05:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what needs clarifying: those titles that currently use IAST diacritics should be moved. I have no particular opinion regarding the other proposal, ie: Moksa to Moksha. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a little squiggly line under the s in Moksa. Apteva (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and, damn, my eyesight must be going! Ok, all of them need moving. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point", etc. This sort of blanket move is quite unwarranted. The crude transliteration is ambiguous, carries less information than the IAST transliteration, and is not what other encyclopedias use. Using an indiscriminate Google search is a ludicruous way to establish what is the "primary transliteration": we need to check among references that are actually to this topic (e.g. what do the cited sources use, etc.) This move may make more sense for "Moksha" and less for "Cīvaka Cintāmaṇi" (whose number of alternative spellings is truly staggering), for instance. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This is "english" wikipedia for general reader. It is not reasonable to assume that every reader is scholar in IAST language. Most of the readers have absolutely no idea how to type and pronounce IAST characters. So what purpose it serves? Also it is unreasonable to assume that every reader has right browser to display IAST characters. And if you see this Britannica article about Tirthankara, they are not using IAST characters anywhere. neo (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IPA is the preferred mechanism for pronunciation descriptors. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Tirthankara example is a good one: in that case, I believe it is possible to actually conclude (after carefully looking at available evidence) that "Tirthankara" may actually be the so-called "primary transliteration". This does not mean that for every single article this is the case. For instance, consider the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has articles on Kumārila and Nāgārjuna at those correct titles, with diacritical marks, and uses them consistently throughout (e.g. this article or this one. For a given article, my proposal is to use what the majority of the cited sources use: not blindly use non-IAST without checking. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support non-IAST per Sitush. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Shreevatsa If your idea that "use what majority of the cited sources use" is made policy, it has potential to change article names repeatedly. For example, many reliable sources use 'Rāma' instead of 'Rama'. Any user can replace sources in the article and change article name to IAST 'Rāma'. Some other user may cite other sources and may change back to 'Rama' or some other name like 'Raam', 'Rām' or 'Ramchandra'. It is better to name article which is in wider usage as per existing policy. neo (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * STRONGLY OPPOSE NEW PAGE NAMES - this discussion goes round and round but in the end the conclusion by editors is that IAST contains useful information (as with Arabic translation) and we regularly use tildes, dots underneath letters, squiggles, accents and strikethrough letters in many, many other entries. No one complains that most people can't write a cedilla or an eñe... This isn't really different because there's redirects for the pages. I particularly dislike suggestions like changing names to things like "Parshwanath", which is half-assed work at best. We should be systematic, use scholarly standards and provide nice redirects, which in general is what we already do for these articles.  Ogress  smash! 
 * Have you actually looked at what most English-language scholars use? This is English Wikipedia and you redirect argument carries no weight: it could equally apply in the opposite direction. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done quite a lot of Jain research, and the use of diacritics in scholarly works is standard. Indeed, IAST exists for this very purpose: consistent romanisation. My argument holds perfect water on the issue of "there are too many accents" because non-standard roman letters are in wide use on Wikipedia, which frequently deals in depth with non-English topics. See also the Hepburn romanisation system as in Heijō Palace; innumerable Japanese words have entered Wikipedia using that system, which uses macrons like IAST and they serve the same purpose. IAST is sometimes used with some of its marks removed, but why would we remove them? It's fine to just use a redirect, as has been done with Buddhist, Indian Philosophical, and Hindu topics and quite a few Indian place-names. It's also not as if Jainism is a popular topic in the world, either, where you'd argue that "Well, everyone knows Malleenat so we should use that term"; in fact, most of the topics and names IAST is used for are by their nature fairly obscure and there's no reason to remove useful information from their spelling. There is also no standard way outside of IAST to transliterate Indic (IA or Dravidian) names and words; it's all just individuals sounding things out according to their preferred language, which is cause for mass chaos and also the reason IAST is used to transliterate modern Indic languages as well: it is a solid, practical, useful and widely-employed system.  Ogress  smash! 
 * As an example, one of the most popular books on Jainism in English - perhaps the most read book on the topic - is Padmanabh S. Jaini's The Jaina Path of Purification, a 1977 book that has been reprinted a lot of times. Jaini's book, intended for the lay reader as an introduction to Jainism, consistently uses IAST for every Indic word throughout the entire book.  Ogress  smash! 
 * Even Jainism: An Indian religion of salvation by Glasenapp and The Jains by Paul Dundas uses IAST. Almost every important book on Jainism uses IAST. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

All articles I have listed here are moved by user:The Rahul Jain without any discussion or move request. It is better to stick to policy. If not, I gave example of Rama few times that some user will replace sources in that article which write 'Rama' as 'Rāma' and will move article to IAST name. Today he went on creating article Rāma (Jainism) with IAST spelling just to show me that he will keep moving articles in future to IAST names. Google search results - "Rāma" Jainism - 1,67,000, "Rama" Jainism - 35,10,000. But he will argue that his 'reliable sources' write Rama that way. It is better to stick to policy to avoid such disruption of wikipedia. And I request user:The Rahul Jain to move article to correct name Rama (Jainism) and stop disrupting wikipedia. neo (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wiki articles should not include IAST. This is an online English encyclopaedia. online for an international audience, not just an Indian one. As for Samsara, the Samsara Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism Wiki articles should ideally also do away with the IAST. Also any others such as Atman (Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism). The argument about books containing IAST is really a non-starter, as people buying or reading such books have a different perspective about such matters. This applies to Indian websites as well catering predominantly for an Indian audience--Zananiri (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment When we use IAST or other formal transliteration, there is one-to-one ratio. e.g. "महावीर" becomes "Mahāvīra". Informally, it is referred as Mahavira, Mahaveer, Mahavir etc. It seems a good idea to use IAST/formal transliteration for such articles and if, through consensus, it is determined that the term has a common name which is used in English, we can change it. Rahul Jain (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To me and other non-Indians "महावीर" is mumbo-jumbo, as we don't know what language it is and what it says. It follows, therefore, that IAST is meaningless to us. This is not an Indian site catering just for Indians. People reading English are not necessarily familar with or interested in IAST.
 * As for consensus, I note that you changed Mahavira to its present title (and others) without seeking consensus, but, yes, consensus is usually desirable. IAST in published material is a different kettle of fish altogether, as such publications are generally targeting a specific audience and, in any case, have a very limited print-run. By writing  "महावीर" here, whatever that means, you have, in fact, proved the point neo. is making and of those supporting him. Zananiri (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that your point is not made because of महावीर because you do not understand what we are saying. महावीर is not IAST; IAST is how we write that word in roman letters, the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration. The point The Raul Jain was trying to make was that in fact when people don't use IAST, they just sound things out depending on their native language and literacy. This is the reason IAST was invented: to ensure the people writing (for example) MUTT MATHA MATH MATT MUTTAH and others would have a standard to use. We have to pick a romanisation for these words, and we shouldn't just pick whichever one was cobbled together and got repeated the most on the intarwubs. Jain studies are heavily informal and have a staggering degree of diversity because the practitioners might be Tulu Bunt or Marwari Vaisyas, Digambara or Svetambara, fluent English speakers or not. To organise this mass chaos, we should stick to IAST. This many web hits does not impress me when it comes to non-native speakers rendering archaic Jain Prakrit or Sanskrit terms as pronounced by their particular community into rough English approximations. Do not overestimate the coverage of Jain topics in English by limiting yourself to ad-hoc transliterations found on the internet. There's a reason all these intro books to Jainism (and Buddhism and Hinduism) use IAST: the communities are so diverse there needs to be a universal standard. One translation might be from Hindu, another Gujrati, another Tamil, another Tulu, another Marwari: the results are going to be chaotic, as we've seen, especially for such a rarified topic as Jainism. I love Jainism but there are anime fandoms with a bigger presence on Wikipedia, boys and girls. These terms are not widely known in English so I don't think there's an actual consensus for non-IAST forms. The only argument I can see is to strip diacritics off, which is pointless - a reader without knowledge simply ignores diacritics and a reader with knowledge is extremely grateful for the information.  Ogress  smash! 


 * I an afraid you have not understand the gist of what I was saying. I am perfectly aware of what IAST is and what we are discussing. I was trying to be civil. Please don't get carried away. I am not confused about the insertion of of महावीर" in the post I mentioned. That was a separate issue.


 * I could equally say, I believe you and others opposing  neo. and those who agree with him, have not understood the crux of the matter. This is, in the final analysis, an English encyclopaedia, so those remarks about which readers would be extremenly grateful for the information you allude to, come across, to me at least, as being pointless, irrelevant and tendentious: (POV). Th NPOV stance would be to do away with IAST here. Enough said. Zananiri (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

* Suggestion: Note that this not an issue unique to Indic languages -- all non-English languages probably have this issue, and variations of essentially this same argument will have been made for each of them. So let us look at what other languages do: what do the editors of Arabic-language articles do, for instance: do they use a precise transliteration following some standard (which will therefore be understandable to not everyone, presumably), or some ad-hoc transliteration without diacritic marks? What about Japanese, or Mandarin, or Russian? (Or even German for that matter: do they use umlauts which most English-language readers don't know how to read, or do they drop all diacritic marks?) Knowing what the Wikipedia consensus is for other languages will help us come to a more informed decision on this matter, and also one that is more consistent across Wikipedia. (As an aside, note that we've been calling it IAST by mistake, but we really mean "IAST or ISO 15919". In the case of Cīvaka Cintāmaṇi for instance, it's a work written in not Sanskrit but Tamil. Thus, on the internet, all the spellings Civaka Cintamani, Jivaka Chintamani, Seevaga Chintamani, Seevaga Sinthamani and many other variants are found. In fact, if we're not going to use ISO 15919/IAST, then I strongly suggest that the second word should not be spelled "Cintamani": the first vowel is a 'ch' sound represented in IAST/ISO 15919 by 'c', but more commonly represented in natural English spelling as "ch") Shreevatsa (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't believe that the use of diacritics confuses most users, we should aim for precision first, not treat users as idiots. It is important to keep our work as close to scholarly usage as possible, and I think that more articles should be in IAST, not less. Imc (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - note that the proposal first quotes the (draft) policy, where it refers to references, then seamlessly goes on to quote google hits instead, which are something else. Imc (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Using IAST spelling in title (like 'Mahāvira') and then using non-IAST spelling (like 'Mahavira') in the body of article doesn't make sense. And if we make policy that IAST spelling should be used in the body, then it is like forbidding most people in the world to edit articles because most people don't know how to type IAST characters. We can use IAST spelling in intro line of articles and that should be enough. neo (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title should correspond to the usage in the article, but I disagree with the 'forbidding'. This is like arguing that many or most Hindu / Jain terms are forbidding because they are not English. Not everyone knows what dharma is, why should it not be replaced by an English word that everyone knows? The reason is the same reason that we should use IAST, so as not to lose information. In this case because no word of English can be used to translate dharma and we lose key information by using words such as religion, universal law, duty, et.c.No doubt some will say that pronunciation is less important but lack of clarity of pronunciaton has led enwiki editors to confusion. For instance the editing history of the Krishna article shows some confusion - Vasudeva being confused with Vāsudeva. Imc (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment I think it's worth taking another week to see if we can develop consensus. Potentially of interest: Mahāvīra was moved to Mahavira per this RM yesterday. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When article moves discussions are combined, it always becomes a war between IAST and Indian English transliteration. Probably the best thing to do it, instead of a standard generalization, let each article name be discussed separately. For example, multiple academic sources use non-IAST Moksha. Also moksha is an English word, like avatar and guru. Also, samsara is in English dictionaries without diacritics , . But the use of non-IAST equivalents Cīvaka Cintāmaṇi may be disputed. All Samsara articles need to be discussed together, but not with Vyākhyāprajñaptis, Mahaviras. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Mallinatha is a disambig now. If this article is to be moved there, is Mallinatha the primary topic? also needs to be discussed. Suggest separate discussion for the same. Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's evident from the RM above that this interpretation of Naming conventions (Indic) as applied to Hinduism and Jainism Sanskrit terms does not have the consensus of a substantial majority of involved editors. There's no practice of using IAST spelling in modern names, but this is a highly technical academic area and stripping the IAST spellings doesn't make us more encyclopaedic. An RfC and establishment of a stable WP:SANSKRIT MOS under Naming conventions (Indic) needs working out before more RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As User:In ictu oculi notes, with one or two exceptions, these are relatively obscure, academic topics that are served well with the precision that IAST affords.  Also, as noted by several others, Google hits are not "references".  —  AjaxSmack   05:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.