Talk:Parshvanatha

Digambara, Svetambara in the time of Parshvanatha
Do you have reliable source(s) that states Digambara and Svetambara sects were already established in the time of Parshvanatha or Mahavira? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said that. Who did? There was one single sect as far as I've read the sources. What I'm disputing is the mention of differences in the teaching of two and interpretation of Chaturyama Dharma. As far as sources are concerned, Dundas and Shah mention about analysis of PK Modi and Jaini, which has not been given any weightage. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "The differences between the ideas between Parshvanatha and Mahavira", this is the primary point of my dispute and tags. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * They are different. One had four restraints, other five. There was a long debate, per the three cited sources. Later Jain scholars tried to explain and reconcile the two. We need to add a section that explains this reconciliation effort, which I plan to in coming days. Why was all this not included before you filed for GA review? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "They are different" says who? Source? Digambara consider their teachings to be same. It didn't grabbed my attention at that time. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Say the sources. Are you alleging the sources are stating that both taught five restraints? That's absurd. Click those sources and read them please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dundas, page 32. Fourfold interpretation is not unanimously accepted. It can also be related to (mind, body, speech and senses). Why are you ignoring that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there are multiple interpretations. We need to explain those different sides, per NPOV guideline. This article should not pretend the equivalent of 4 = 5. The differences/similarities between Parshva and Mahavira is in mainstream scholarship, covered in numerous RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

See this. Its only Svetambara which consider their teachings to be different, not Digambaras. That needs a mention. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Digambara POV / Prafulla Modi's analysis needs to be included. We already have had the summary, "PK Modi rejects the theory of difference in Parshvanatha and Mahavira's teachings" in this article, for a long while. It needs to be better explained. We will. But please know I see a systematic push of Digambara POV in wikipedia articles, where you are active. For example, your GA nominated article, before my first edit, called Rishabhanatha as "After being initiated as a Digambara monk, he..." in the lead! That is amazing OR and irresponsible POV-pushing. This is not okay for NPOV. Let us avoid similar issues in this article. All traditions, Svetambara, Digambara etc need to covered here. This is not only fair, but due because a vast majority of female Jain mendicants have been and are Svetambara! Their views matter, gender balance is important in wikipedia, as are proper NPOV in this and other Jainism articles. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content and OR
Please see this source, and do not add unsourced content. I welcome NPOV. However, NPOV can only be based on views that can be verified in reliable source(s). Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The source you have mentioned has a Svetambara iconography and talks about Svetambara texts only. The content is too less too, merely 2 paragraphs. I thought we discussed it in detail before, above, and about PK Modi, CR Jain, P S Jaini and KC Jain, view on the same. I'll suggest, avoid stating the biased view as a fact and make it neutral in lede. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  01:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Capankajsmilyo: Well, you are doing the same OR with Britannica source, and were inserting your personal views in front of the cite. We can only write in the lead/main what the sources state:
 * Policy: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
 * If you add something that is supported in one or more reliable source(s), I would welcome that. But add only that which is supported, and please do cite your RS with page numbers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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