Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anekantavada


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:27, 4 August 2008.

Anekantavada

 * Nominator(s): Alastair Haines (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because Anish, has repeatedly expressed his desire to work this article up to FA standard. He has energetically sought several peer reviews and copy edits, welcoming direct improvements to the article and providing improvements as recommended in other cases. Additionally, Anish is keen to work other Jainism articles up to FA. The sooner we can assist him with top notch refinements, the sooner he can move on to providing the same quality co-ordination of sourcing and editing he has contributed to the current article.

As for the article itself, first and foremost it is based on impeccable sources and refined to a readable, reliable, informative text, that is clear of POV or other issues. It has a very clear presentation of its sources, a fine bibliography in itself. Philosophy, history, criticism and even human interest are presented logically, appropriately illustrated and come in a text that has some rather long, but essential foreign terms. Altogether, it is an excellent example of an introduction to a topic for which quality English language text for the popular educated market is rare.

Of course, no article is ever perfect. However, several editors have worked hard to support Anish' initiative. Our own limitations prevent us from providing further constructive criticism. So I am proud to present Anish' work, but request we honour him as he would like by offering our most searching constructive criticism. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Article stats:


 * 467 (465/2) Anishshah19
 * 66 (63/3) Alastair Haines
 * 34 (5/29) Qmwne235
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason for not listing User:Anishshah19 as a co-nominator? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Three reasons:
 * Anish and his role is clearly stated in the nomination—he is the main contributor;
 * to my understanding, he is consenting to nomination, rather than promoting his own work; and
 * this is my first nomination of an article for FA, so I could be overlooking proceedural things.
 * If there's anything inappropriate in this, surely it must be my incompetance, and not relevant to either Anish or the article. I tried to follow everything the FAC pages and tags told me to do, feel free to point out anything I overlooked at my talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong at all; just curious, because it's common for a main contributor to nominate their own work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.jainworld.com/ a reliable source?
 * Reply: Out of all the sites of Jainism, Jainworld.com is authentic, informative, comprehensive and popular web-site since 1997. It has faithfully rendered translations of many ancient Jain texts, literature, mythology, legends and stories. While there are hundreds of Jainism related sites, I have chosen to reference one item from Jainworld.com as it contains literature and writings of modern scholars also like Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi, Pt. Hukumchand Bharil, Kanji Svami and like.--Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm also allowed to reply here, but I will anyway. Jainworld.com is recognized as a reliable source on Jainism within the Jain community. As Anish said above, it has accurate translations and commentaries on Jain texts. It is widely used by Jain temples in India, the U.S., and all over the world. -- Qmwne 235  19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm?
 * Reply: Sacred-texts.com is a site that strives to produce the transcriptions of public domain texts on the subject of religion, mythology, folklore and the esoteric. The texts are posted for free access on the Internet like a public library. It has faithfully posted and reproduced the translations of Acaranga Sutra and other Jain canons by the noted German Indologist Hermann Jacobi. One of the reviews of this site is posted here that you may like to go through - http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Sacred-Texts.com-89518-1.html --Anish (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good and links checked out with the link checking tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablitiy of the non-english sources Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this satisfies your query. If so you may support this nomination.--Anish (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliability of these sources still unclear; see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for how to go about addressing these queries. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment "(599 – 527 BCE)" &rarr; "(599–527 BCE)" I believe? "Huntington, Ronald. Jainism and Ethics. Retrieved on July 18, 2007." needs a publisher. Gary King ( talk ) 17:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: I have corrected the dating format as suggested. The website contains the following information: Ron Huntington, former professor of religion at Chapman University and co-director of the Chapman University Albert Schweitzer Institute, was preparing a textbook on world religions at the time of his death. A chapter of the textbook was to introduce Jainism, the religion from the Indian subcontinent that stresses ahimsa, radical non-injury or nonviolence, as a way of life. On account of the probable influence of Jainism and the ethical principle of ahimsa upon Schweitzer and his ethic of Reverence for Life, the chapter prepared by Ron Huntington is reproduced here. So I guess, the publisher would be Chapman University.  --Anish (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments not a field I am an expert in but I will note some places for improvement:


 * According to anekāntavāda, truth and reality are perceived differently from different points of view, and no single point of view is the complete truth - to avoid repetition --> 'according to its doctrine'


 * Proponents (of anekantavāda) apply this principle to.. - can lose brcketed bit without losing meaning


 * Philosophical overview section I'd rename Philosophy or Tenets - that it is an overview goes without saying


 * I will do some straightforward fixes but am clueless over comprehensiveness. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Support – After going through the article, I am of the opinion that this article should be a featured article. It has good prose, impeccable scholarly references and explains the concept of Anekantavada in a very clear and lucid manner. It has already been rated as a Good Article. Overall, it is an excellent article and if it passes the vote, it will be the first article on Jainism in this category to do so. --Manish Modi 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish Modi (talk • contribs)


 * I strongly support the nomination. The article is thoroughly researched and very well written. I hope to add something to it but after a while. I think this should be a very interesting article not only for those who are interested in Jainism, but also those interested in exploring pluralism. Anish has done great work on it.--Malaiya (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - It meets all the criteria, so there is no reason not to move it up. The article has come a long way, and now has enough information for even an expert on the subject to learn something. All of this information is supported by specific citations. To borrow and summarize from WP:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment:


 * A featured article should be:


 * (a) well-written (although there may some minor grammatical or stylistic errors, one would have to actively search for these to find them)
 * (b) comprehensive (this article includes information not only about anekantavada itself, but also about related principles, criticism, history, and those influenced by it)
 * (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; (the citations provided are mostly of important Jain scholars or those who are otherwise familiar with the principles of Jainism)
 * (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; (although one may perceive a bias if one overanalyzes the article, the criticism section nicely balances the article out)
 * (e) stable (no major edit wars have taken place)
 * (f) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections (the lead is very well structured; it is concise and comprehensive)
 * (g) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); (yep)
 * (h) consistent citations (always footnotes here, with references below)
 * Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. (yep)
 * Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. (about as long as most FAs, maybe even shorter, but is still comprehensive without unnecessarily meandering; every section pertains directly to the doctrine)

However, the article could use a little help from a proofreader who can make sure the article adheres strictly to the technical aspects of WP:MoS. I'll go through it again to try to smooth out any stylistic flaws that may still exist. -- Qmwne 235  19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comment by Ruhrfisch I peer reviewed this and am delighted at how much it has improved. I still have some concerns about the article that need to be resolved before I can support it here. I also note that I made some minor copyedits just now ("stand point" and "stand-point" are now all just "standpoint", same for "viewpoint"), and many more refs now follow puntuation without a space, but I am not sure all such nitpicks have been caught. Here are some of my concerns:
 * According to See_also "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." All three "See also" links are already linked in the article and may not be needed here.
 * The see also section has been changed, trust it is more relevant now. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to MOS, "Block quotations A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, ..." There are many short block quotes used that seem to violate this (the dialogues are fine as block quotes as they are more than on paragraph)
 * Standardised the block quotations. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The formatting and referencing of block quotes is not consistent. For example this identifies author and source in the text, has a ref, and then repeats this in small text after the quote:

"Ācārya Divākara further states in Sanmatitarka:[31]


 * All doctrines are right in their own respective spheres – but if they encroach upon the province of other doctrines and try to refute their view, they are wrong. A man who holds the view of the cumulative character of truth never says that a particular view is right or that a particular view is wrong.


 * —Ācārya Siddhasena Divākara, Sanmatitarka 1:28 "

While another block quote is just followed by a large type "5.113" (I assume this is chapter and verse?).

"Māhavīra encouraged his followers to study and understand rival traditions as demonstrated by Acaranga Sutra:[43]


 * "Comprehend one philosophical view through the comprehensive study of another one." - 5.113 "

Other quotations from Jain writings do not include any X:Y numbers. These need to be consistent throughout.


 * Standardised the quotations, author, text, verse format. Certain texts like Acaranga etc do not have authors as they are canons and not attributed to a single person. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In short, the refs need some work, mostly polish, but a few more serious problems. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Formatting of references is not consistent. For example Ref 1 just uses the author's last name (Dundas), while others like ref 2 use last name, first name (Koller, John M - later he is just Koller, John in ref 48). This is followed for Indian names in ref 4 (Jaini, Padmanabh), but ref 9 gives the name in regular order (Duli Chandra Jain - this is an editor).
 * I have no idea what ref 5 means, it is just "so Monier-Williams"
 * Ref 26 is to an unpublished manuscript, but WP:RS stipulates reliable sources must be published.
 * This is still in - the ref is a duplicate both times it is used, so I do not see why it has to be in. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what ref 32 means "E. B. (2001) p.2093" If E.B. is Encylcopedia Brittanica, I do not think that is the best source to use in any FA.
 * Someone has fixed all the references, so after a little bit of polishing, those will be fine. I agree with you regarding the See also section; all of the topics in it were linked prominently and discussed earlier in the article. As for the block quotes, many of those involve rather strange circumstances, so I'll leave those for someone more skilled with MoS quotation guidelines. -- Qmwne 235  02:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I am also not an expert on MOS quotation guidelines, but it seems odd at least that different quotes have such different styles, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck resolved refs. There is still an unpublished work cited, although it is a duplicate ref in each case and contravenes WP:RS. I also note that this "Acarya Siddhasena Divakara. in (ed.) Bhadrankar Vijaya Gani: Vardhamana Dvatrimsika. Jaipur: Prakrit Bharti Academy." is missing a date. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done both of them--Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think most of the Ruhrfisch’s concerns have been resolved. --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except for some very short block quotes, which I will assume are OK, all of my concerns have been met. Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reviewing only image licensing: I'm not sure about Image:Adi Shankara recoloured.jpg. --NE2 12:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The image should not be a problem as the licensing seems to be okay. This image is also used in the article Adi Shankara which is also a “featured article” --Anish (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the website owner actually created the image or just scanned it from somewhere. --NE2 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether it is used in another featured article is not relevant; we need to get this cleared here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert in Images and licencing. Prima facie the licencing seems to be ok. Evidence has been emailed and lodged with the Wikimedia PR department. I dont know what more I can do about this. Can anyone help?--Anish (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments. I haven't had time to read the article in depth.  The concepts and terminology used are completely foreign to me, which made digging into the article pretty difficult.  I read the philosophical overview section and skimmed the rest for now.
 * The philosophical overview section offers very useful information, but I think it's focus might need to switch a bit. After the intro to that section, the information is presented in terms of Jainism rather than in relation to anekantavada.  For example, the section Jain doctrines of relativity could be reworded to be "Anekantavada is one of three Jain doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning.  The other two are...".  It's the same information, just worded a bit differently so that the focus remains on the subject of this article.
 * This did not make sense to me until I thought about it a bit. "Syādvāda is the theory of conditioned predication which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that the epithet Syād be attached to every expression" - can we simplify the sentence or begin with a simpler explanation?
 * There are a great many quotations, and I wonder if the article would be better if, in some cases, the meaning behind the quotation were explained and the quote left out. (In some cases the meaning is explained and the quote is added in...just because?).  I have not read the article extremely closely, but on a skim this has a vaguely proselytizing tone.
 * WP:MOSQUOTE says that quotations of less than 4 lines should be inline and not offest with blockquotes


 * Comment: I really appreciate Karanacs' comment, because he addresses complexity respectfully, by pinpointing what needs more (or better) explanation, and even by offering suggestions. I'm intrigued by the "vaguely proselytizing tone" comment and can see how quotations in articles may be understood in this way. My own impression is quite different though. I'm from a different religious tradition, but personally felt the quotes gave substance to the criticism Jainism would direct at other traditions (including my own), rather than feeling editor(s) were seeking to make such comments via the quotes. As such, I found the quotes increased my sense of NPOV rather than suggesting a Jain POV for the article.
 * The more abstract the content of quotes, the more I prefer quotes to editorial paraphrase. The doctrines covered in this article are sometimes quite abstract, and although I'd like explanation, I'd like such interpretation from experts. Just where Wiki needs to draw the line on such things in featured articles is probably pretty inexact. So long as existing quotes are at least retained in footnotes, I'd not oppose changes along the lines Karanacs suggests. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply: I welcome Karanacs’ valuable comments and suggestions for improvement of the article. I have made certain changes as suggested by her and I also agree with Alastair’s reply to her. Jainism is not a proselytizing religion and the quotations from the scriptures were felt to be necessary to provide a better understanding to this concept of anekantavada. Maybe she found it a bit proselytizing as she has just not found time to read the entire article. To balance out, there is a section on criticism and in “intellectual Ahimsa” section, opinion of John Cort and Paul Dundas (both are indologists and Sanskrit/ Prakrit Scholars) have been taken to balance out that view. I hope that she is satisfied by the changes and reply.--Anish (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anish and Q need to disclose that they're major contributors. Tony   (talk)  05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  until properly copy-edited throughout; can you find someone fresh to it? Here are random examples from the top.
 * "differently from different"
 * "claimed to explain"—see Fowler on "Jingles"
 * Move "only" to as late as possible in a clause: "others are only capable of partial knowledge". Where should it go?
 * "that clings too dogmatically to its own tenets"—So it can cling dogmatically, but not too dogmatically? I'd remove "too". After all, what is "too", here. Fuzzy boundary.
 * "The word anekānta itself is a compound of"—spot the redundant word.
 * Full-stop to semicolon before "Hence", in the first section.
 * Consider adding a comma: "According to Jains, the ultimate principle should always be logical and no principle can be devoid of logic or reason."
 * "Thus one finds in the Jain texts deliberative exhortations on every subject, may they be constructive or obstructive, inferential or analytical, enlightening or destructive." MOS breach in the use of "one" (who is this "one"?); just make the statement. I'd insert a comma after "Thus", but that's up to you. "may they be" is ungrammatical; you mean ", be they ..."
 * MOS breach: please read about captions, which should not have the final period if they're not a complete, formal sentence.
 * Rather long blockquotes. Check to see whether they can be trimmed down with the use of [square-bracketed bridging text to save lots of words], and ... ellipsis dots to indicate omissions of text that we don't, strictly speaking, need. It's not a deal-breaker, but they do seem lumpy. I sort of want to know who the translator was, if possible. For example, was Sharma's book written in English? If so, did he translate the original Sanskrit?
 * "in some ways it is and it is indescribable"—easier to digest if you put a comma after the first "is". It's translated, so you have the right to do this. Same for the analogous phrases there.
 * Third- and fourth-level titles really are almost indistinguishable (yet ANOTHER issue WikiMedia needs to address). How about making the Syadvada et al titles fifth-level; see if the hierarchy is clearer. Tony   (talk)  05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I really like Tony's comments, they clearly express insights into the text that eluded me.
 * However, I also disagree with several of them: I prefer only in its current position over the alternative; degree of dogmatism simply is fuzzy in Jain descriptions of the doctrine; I prefer stops to semicolons as a general rule.
 * Mind you, I think "claimed to explain" is a nice catch, and agree with the suggestion to supply a comma (see above).
 * The point here is that I'd encourage Tony to make some of these changes directly. Even where I disagreed, I'd probably not bother reverting them. Some questions are simply matters of taste, there's no objective way of settling them.
 * On the other hand, several copyedits have already eliminated some distinctly convoluted, unclear, redundant and even POV text.
 * But the way forward here is clear. So long as anyone claims the text isn't stylistically up to par as they see it, we can action this by recruiting yet another copyeditor, and hence yet another opinion. That's all to the good. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I found Tony's comments very helpful and have followed some of his suggestions. As I have been a major contributor of this article, I have not "voted" on this pages. Q, I believe is not a major contributor, but his comments were very valuable to improve and remove misunderstanding on the article. I did some of my own copy editing also to enable greater understandability of this article. I have requested user ukexpat to do more copy editing and hope that Tony's oppose will be turned in "support". Thanks.--Anish (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some sections (notably "Intellectual ahimsā and religious tolerance") need to be put into prose.  NB that quotations of less than (roughly) three or four lines long should not be indented.  Also, the bibliographic practice of putting component works under the text in which they're collected (e.g. Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm) is at best idiosyncratic.  All works should be listed alphabetically by author.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Three different editors (myself, Karanacs, and jbmurray) have now pointed out that block quotes are used incorrectly here. Please put quotes shorter than three or four lines back into the text of the article. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have done it for those quotes that were of two lines i.e. less than 3 lines. Actually I was waiting for someone more expert to make changes as I did not want to commit a blunder again. I was also checking other featured article as to how they have given a treatment for quotations. For eg. William Tecumseh Sherman and still am confused as to its treatment. But, I hope now its Ok.--Anish (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Status? There are still questions pending (above) regarding reliability of sources and image licensing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: I can't see any outstanding issues regarding reliability of sources, they were always a strength, the two E.B. refs and the unpublished manuscript have gone. Image licensing applies to one image, and I have seen discussion on talk pages regarding this. It appears permission was granted by the image owner at one point, but then not considered sufficient by a Wiki review at a later point. Still, that review did not choose to "speedy delete" the image. It would be nice if someone who knows more about this could inform the rest of us who watching this page. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I have found another copy of the image. Looks higher resolution to me. To be honest, it also looks like it could well have been scanned from a book. Which book? Who is the artist? My recommendation is that we replace this image with another. I suspect Anish could locate another image and seek permission from its publisher faster than we can discover the "copyright chain" for the current image. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alastair, the concerns on references and formatting seem to have been sorted out. Also the concerns of tony have been addressed on copy editing. I also am a bit taken aback by the concerns on image of Adi Sankara. I relied on the fact that it has been on wikipedia for last two years and is a part of a featured article, which, I assume would have also undergone a detailed scrutiny. And also, I assumed, if the concerns would be raised or else this image would have been deleted long back. Nevertheless, all the concerns ought to be addressed and there is another image, which can also be used, if the licensing is clear on it. The editors can provide some suggestion on the above. --Anish (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On sourcing, pls establish reliability of the sources questioned above (see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for helpful info on how to discuss sourcing issues). This FAQ doesn't inspire confidence and doesn't give any indication of meeting WP:SPS or any part of WP:V.  Similarly, I can't find any info on jainworld.com that speaks to reliability.  The image still needs to be resolved (what happened in past FAs or discussions isn't relevant to this FAC).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per image concerns:
 * Image:Mahavira mahabirji.jpg: The BBC seems to think this image is copyright of JainWorld. The image claims (implicitly) to be self-made, but is of web resolution, lacks metadata and is from a drive-by uploader - meaning limited (>50 edits) contributions.  Can the discrepancies be resolved? (Quack?)
 * Image:Gandhi studio 1931.jpg is claiming p.m.a. 70+ years. It was taken in 1931, which means the author would have to have died within 7 years of taking it; claiming p.m.a. 70+ in this case requires quite a leap of faith especially when the author is claimed to be unknown!  I would buy this if the image was taken in 1831, but this PD claim has absolutely no reasonable support.
 * Image:Adi Shankara recoloured.jpg: The source does not confirm the PD claim. Even if it did, it seems quite unlikely that the webmaster would be the original author/copyright holder (especially in the light of Alastair Haines' comment above).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel sympathy for poor Anish here. This would be funny if it weren't for the delays in accepting his hard work with the text content of the article for the great contribution that it is.

What tickles me is the "unreliable source" Jainworld turns out to be a substantial enough entity for the BBC to acknowledge to hold the legal right to grant them permission to copy an image. ... Man, did that come out of left field! I can just see someone knocking on my door next week and offering me a magazine with that picture of Adi Shankara on the front!

And then, I really take Sandy's point, not only can images on other FAs not be trusted, even featured images cannot be trusted either! Gandhi is a featured image at Turkish Wiki ... tesekkur ederim!

From the FAQ Sandy mentioned, "Q: Did you write all this stuff? A: No. Most of it was written by dead people, a long time ago." Yup, that's not reliable. Dead people don't write, not now, not even a long time ago. Depending on what you believe, they have better things to do than writing ... hmmm, does a wiki editor believe there is anything better than writing?

But to be more constructive. UK copyright is different to the US, doesn't Mahavira come under 2D image of PD art? Let's do it that way? Problems? And/or let's kill two ducks with one stone and check with Jainworld: ask permission for GFDL, and for some other credentials while we're at it. It's 2am here, I'd better sleep. Hopefully someone will rescue some of this while I'm away. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrumph!
 * Citing a copyright holder is not indicative of reliability; anyone can hold a copyright on a self-created image. Giving proper credit is, if anything, only germane to the reliability of BBC.
 * I hate to quote Reagan, but "trust, but verify" is good advice. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and, consequently, should not be trusted in the absence of verification (e.g. reliable sourcing).  Other FAs and/or images therein were not necessarily properly vetted.
 * Mahavira is not a 2D object (U.S. Bridgeman v. Corel would not apply). Even if it were, U.K. has decisions and opinions (e.g.  Interlego v Tyco; Hyperion Records v Sawkin; Laddie, Precott and Vitoria, 2nd edn; Copinger & Skone James 15th Edition; Michalos, The Law of Photography and Digital Images, 2004) which set the threshold of orginiality rather low (e.g. choice of filters, angles, lighting, etc. may be enough to warrant a new copyright).  You're correct that contacting JainWorld would be a good route to take.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, some objections have been raised on two references – Jainworld and Sacred-texts.com. These objections were raised before by diligent editors and then resolved to their satisfaction. Now more mavens have chipped in and repeated these resolved queries as apparently these two references still don’t “inspire confidence” and hence again we have been called upon to give more additional testimony that will “inspire confidence”. I was looking for contstructive comments and contributions, but then……… so be it. I know every one cannot be satisfied and I dont intend to, but here is one more attempt.
 * Let us tackle sacred-texts first by taking help of google scholar and google books. Many scholars and authors have thought it fit to quote and refer Sacred-texts.com. A search on Google Scholar here gives a number of “284” and Google Books  gives a number of  “251”.
 * Jain world.com – Prof. Yashwant K. Malaiya of Colorado University has compiled a list of authoritative websites and Jain world is listed under two categories – supersites (extensive articles and books) and Advanced sites (excellent source for scholarly books and article). Check here. This sort of objection can go on and on and I have my limitations on replying to the same query repeatedly.
 * As far as images are concerned, we can correspond with jainworld, but I think it will be of no use. Because, even after contacting Jainworld, some hotshot may have additional barrage of objections which will go to infinite regression of questioning the source of the source of the source. If one were to question the validity of images in “featured articles” or featured images itself, then there would be no dearth of objections from hotshots who consider it their moral duty to raise all sorts of objections. If that be the case, then more than the half of the featured articles need to be down graded simply because of the “image issue” --Anish (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These objections were raised before by diligent editors and then resolved to their satisfaction.  If you can point me to where those discussions occurred, I will review them; on this FAC, reliability of sources hasn't been addressed or resolved. Ealdgyth raised the concerns and has not stuck them. Also, a link to google scholar doesn't directly answer WP:SPS concerns; please see the Dispatch for examples of how to answer the query.  The sources may very well be reliable; we just need for you to give us the info to verify that they are.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have addressed these issues before and now once again I have done it. The straightforward question was - "what makes" Jainworld and Sacred-text a reliable source? Anyway I thought it was a straight forward question. So I gave a straight forward answer on what makes it a reliable source. I can take the horse to water, but I can't make it drink. If one group has pre-decided that they are not going to be satisfied by whatever explanation is given, I simply cannot help it. Just look up the explanation that I have given to Ealdgyth and then once again to you. And try to understand it - what makes it a reliable source. I was hoping for something constructive and not road blocks. But so be it. I have given it my best shot. If some who has supported this nomination can reply to this query is a different manner and language that Sandygeorge and group can understand, please give the reply in that manner maybe this nomination will not fail due to so called outstanding unresolved queries. Or else we can just forget it. --Anish (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok...let me once again go through the Dispatch to see what seems to have been still missed out that has not yet inspired confidence.--Anish (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don’t know whether those objecting on “sacred texts” have taken adequate efforts to check and verify the references quoted. What I have basically quoted is not sacred-text.com but Hermann Jacobi’s book, edited by Max Muller i.e. Sacred Books of the East published by Oxford Clarendon press. Now, since the copy right for the book has expired and it has been scanned and put up on “sacred-texts”, I thought “why not give a link for sacred-texts.com for easier verification.” Check this page . I could have easily avoided the linking. If the link of the sacred-text is causing agitation, I can simply remove the link for sacred-texts. The reference for Jacobi will still remain the same (as the book is the reference) and there will be no changes in the article, only the link for the bibliography can be removed. --Anish (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As for Jainworld.com, I have checked the dispatch and in my opinion - although the dispatch does not seem to be part of the Wikipedia mandatory rules – Jainworld does not seem to be contrary to these guidelines. It is neither a blog or a forumpost nor a self-published articles nor usenet postings, nor having a “highly commercial feel” nor a fan contributor site. Secondly I have already posted the view of Prof. Yashwant of Colorado University who says that it is an excellent source for scholarly books and articles as per the link above.--Anish (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I like the points of the last poster (Anish?). I can see an argument for not linking to Sacred Texts, since its text uploads are not professionally edited. However, nor are the uploads at Project Gutenberg, the Internet Archive or Google Books. On balance I'd go for keeping the link, but if it's the only outstanding objection other than images, I can see light at the end of the tunnel here.
 * I'm glad to hear someone (Anish, I think) continue to stand up for Jainworld. I think there's a cultural issue here. As a westerner, I do think Jainworld has a "highly commercial feel", but that's with my cultural blinkers on. My experience of South-East Asia, and India, while not extensive, certainly suggests "commercialism" is more pervasive in these cultures. I think, once again, it is not the reliability of content that is really at question, but a western scruple (and a wise one) regarding linking to sites with a "commercial feel". Clicking on links at such sites can download adware (I think). This is one reason quality western sites avoid any actual advertising, and often even the appearance of advertising.
 * I think this is an important issue for us to resolve, and plead for "cultural sensitivity". Jainworld is probably a very responsible site operating in the Indian economy. Indian sources are obviously ideal for Indology, and Jainworld for Jainism in particular. I'd like for Wiki to listen to Professor Yashwant on this matter. Perhaps a short article on Jainworld could help give readers a collection of sources that help verify its reliability. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I use some old local histories that are available in libraries or as expensive reprints or online on genealogy websites (which by themselves are perhaps not reliable). When I cite them, I give the full book information (the current Jacobi refs are missing this), the ISBN for the reprint, and the web link to it. See for example ref 6 in Larrys Creek. Perhaps the Jainworld and Sacred Texts books could be cited in a similar fashion? Just an idea that hoepfully helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Three issues: reliable source identified clearly, accessible copies located if possible, integrity rating of copy indicated if questionable.
 * Here's Ruhres example:
 * Note: ISBN refers to the Heritage Books July 1996 reprint. URL is to a scan of the 1892 version with some OCR typos.
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Rhur's advise. It can be done. But only for sacred-text, not for Jainworld.com. I suggest that we delete all references of Jainworld and the corresponding paragraphs from article. Hopefully this will address all the concerns on reliability.--Anish (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the problematic Jainworld and applied Ruhr's idea and changed the references. I now trust that the problems of references have been resolved.--Anish (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that the issue of images is hopefully at least mostly resolved, it's time to move on to other things. I still see some rather short block quotes that should be taken care of (see "Early history" and "The parable of the blind men and the elephant", specifically). I'm hesitant to mess with them myself, as I'm not an expert on MoS, but they need to be fixed. I think the citation issues have mostly been fixed. Some copyediting work still needs to be done; I just fixed a few rough sentences, and there are bound to be more. I think that unless something else arises, MoS issues like sentence flow and block quotes should take top priority. -- Qmwne 235  22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick look at the article now indicates that the problem of block quotes and MOS seem to have been resolved by Qmwne and Alastair. The number of quotes seem to have been reduced by more than a half. I dont think there are any copy edit or grammatical issues. And with removal of Jainworld and correcting of Jaconi references, Sandygeorgia's concerns too seem to have been hopefully resolved. I hope then we can move forward from here. If so, this will be the first article on Jainism to be featured. --Anish (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Change—I withdrew my oppose above; it's considerably better. But the fact that I can still pick out little glitches should prompt the nominators to get someone new in to polish it up. I think the prose shouldn't hold up a promotion now, but please do make us proud of it in the coming days/weeks. These are samples from a small portion.
 * "According to German Indologist Hermann Jacobi, Māhavīra in his time, effectively employed the ...". Bump bump; suggest you remove the second comma.
 * "a 17th century Jain monk"—what's missing?
 * "was desirous of"—make it one word. In fact, see the whole sentence: "Emperor Siddharaja was desirous of enlightenment and liberation and he questioned teachers from all the various traditions". This should be "Emperor Siddharaja desired enlightenment and liberation, and questioned teachers from all of the traditions." I hope "various traditions" was clear; if so, this should also be clear, but better. Try to avoid the V word.
 * Do watch "or" in English. This one is an equative or, and isn't clear: "so in the kaliyuga or "the age of vice"" --> "so in the kaliyuga ("the age of vice")". Tony   (talk)  09:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More excellent observations regarding English expression from Tony. We do keep throwing copyeditors at the article. I only wish Tony had time for more of this himself, he's outstanding. Anyway, I'll work on your points myself right now. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding to the query on my talk page, there are still some loose ends: three unstruck image concerns (above), WP:MSH issues (review use of "the" in section headings), and please ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix the numerous incorrect WP:DASHes in the article and citations.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew about that script before I corrected the dashes in the references by hand. Could you indicate an example of one that remains? They look fine to me. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found two at the end that must have been added recently. Fixed now. Any I've missed? Alastair Haines (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok.I think I have found one free image of Gandhi in wikipedia commons and my friend will be uploading a self taken image of Mahavira idol. I dont know what to do about Adi Sankara yet.


 * I have changed these three images. Hope the issue is resolved. Also, WP:MSH issues and --WP:DASHes concerns have been addressed. Anish (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We're short on image-knowledgeable reviewers: can you ask User:Elcobbola to revisit? If he's not available, then User:Kelly or User:NE2.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Gandhi writing Aug1942.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. (The source would need to confirm 1) the image was first published in India and 2) that such publication was 60+ years ago to support the PD-India copyright tag). ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 12:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi died on the 30 January 1948 (aged 78) in New Delhi. 1948+60=2008! We're getting pretty close here. ;)
 * Here be more information — GandhiServe Foundation.
 * It would appear our image is a copy of PEMG1942085005 according to the GandhiServe catalogue numbering system.
 * According to the same source, the photographer appears to be Kanu Gandhi (1917–1986), the great-nephew of the man himself.
 * The Indian Copyright Act (1957) Section 13(2)(i) states its provisions are applicable when:
 * "in the case of a published work, the work is first published in India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;"
 * Section 25 of the same act specifies that copyright extends for 60 years from 1st January of the year following publication.
 * If the photograph was published before Gandhi's assassination, it would now be public domain in India.
 * However, since India declared independence only on the 15 August 1947 and became a republic on 26 January 1950, it is just possible that copyright for this image actually falls under the (UK) Copyright Act 1911. I'm unclear which law would apply between 1947 and 1950.
 * I'll keep looking for publication date. I suspect this will be prior to 1947. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Great Work. I have also found one image and put up a message for user:elcobbola as to whether this image here  copyright free? It says Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image. If yes, under what licencing can it be uploaded? Maybe this will resolve the last hurdle.--Anish (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done some more reading of the Indian and UK copyright acts and it appears that what these laws actually are is a promise from the government to protect the rights of those who produce original works. So, with India taking responsibility for governing its citizens, it took responsibility to protect copyright retrospectively. A breach of the copyright of a photograph in 1970, published in what is now India in 1920, would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Indian judicial system not the UK judicial system. Wikipedia, in 2008, therefore answers to the Indian government regarding copyright of all images published in what is now India since January 1st 1948. Anything published in what is now India prior to that time is released by the Indian Copyright Act (1957) into the public domain. The law provides for waiving copyright in various cases, but not for enforcing more than this. In fact, 2008 was a historic year for Indian copyright, since it is now more than 60 years since Indian independance was declared. From now onwards, everything protected by this law was first published in sovereign India. But was PEMG1942085005 first published before independance? Where was it published? Alastair Haines (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is going to take some time to resolve; can that image be commented out in the meantime? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The legal stuff is easy. The problem will be finding the publication date. The photograph was taken about a week before Gandhi went to prison for two years, while the British were fighting the Japanese on the eastern borders of India. Gandhi was a journalist and publisher, but wartime censorship and emprisonment would not have been conducive to publication until after the war.
 * The photograph has been released by GandhiServe to several professional websites, who have displayed it with acknowledgement to both author (Kanu) and to GandhiServe. It is likely this included a royalty, it is almost certain that it would not have granted permission for modification. The licensing at GandhiServe is specific about both matters.
 * Kanu Gandhi, being deceased cannot give us permission to use his work. I'm not sure GandhiServe will want to admit that the photo is in the public domain, since they sell high quality copies. But that's the most obvious way forwards, to ask GandhiServe for the date of first publication. They could be very nice and especially so to Wikipedia. So long as it is clear that we'll be displaying a low quality version, that doesn't compete with their image.
 * If we can find a date of publication prior to Indian independence we can go ahead, otherwise we can't. Kanu may simply have turned over his personal collection of unpublished photos to GandhiServe, in which case they won't be out of copyright until 60 years after first being published by GandhiServe.
 * I recommend someone contact GandhiServe. I expect they'll reply promptly, they look very professional and friendly. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question; do you want to comment out or remove this image while you wait for resolution? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair...Good research...but we may be back to square one and this will drag on. why dont we use this one here copyright free? It says ''Gandhi at his spinning wheel in 1929. Public domain image''. this might solve our problem.--Anish (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:FCDW/August 11, 2008; it won't solve the problem unless someone reviews and clears it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful in your research to remember that date created and date first published are not the same thing. Gandhi's lifespan is not relevant or helpful in determining PD status.  (Merely taking a picture does not start the clock running; we indeed need to know an author or a publication date.)  The proposed image is fine if http://www.sacred-destinations.com can be established as a reliable source (ask Ealdgyth?)  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am at my wits end over Gandhi image. One would have thought that Image of India's father of nation would not be a problem, and considering that there is a featued article of Gandhi.--Anish (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I have uploaded a new image which I believe will not be a problem. Now over to sandy and elcobbola.--Anish (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to the new image, please? (Elcobbola is traveling and his limited access, so the easier you can make it on him, the better.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Gandhi face.gif. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Sandy's image. I did note that the Bern Convention specifically provides that photographs are to have a copyright term of no less than 25 years after creation of the image (hence dates have some circumstantial relevance). It is up to various jurisdictions what additional protection they wish to offer. From the Indian and UK laws, it is clear that they provide a term analogous to that of other works, though they both isolate photographs as a special case.
 * GandiServe has to watermark its images because many (if not all) are actually public domain. They also have to advertise them as being created from negatives using a high quality reproduction process. This also is because they cannot assert they hold the copyright (in all cases). The basis of sale is quality, not merely copyright.
 * I think Anish is also making an important point. There are public domain images of all recent national leaders. It would be odd if there were no PD images of Gandhi. The most likely explanation is precisely that offered by the site that offers Sandy's image—all photographs from that period are public domain. It sounds too blanket to me, it should say, all images published in that period are public domain, and that is true.
 * If someone just looked at newspapers and other works published prior to 1948 with pictures of Gandhi, some will match pictures on the internet. But why even bother. Simply scan those images, they are now PD. We can make our own. All that is required is to note the source—a book or newspaper published prior to 1948.
 * Our problem is only the laziness of web-sites, and our own! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy's image? I linked that image from the article, so Elcobbola could check it.  It was added by Anish, and still needs to be checked.  Did you notice the question I asked above?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sandy, I saw it, but I didn't understand it. Not sure I do even now. Bear of little brain, that's me. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be more clear :-) This article's promotion is being held up by one image, whose resolution isn't likely going to be easy or fast, based on the complexity of the image issues, as explained by Elcobbola.  If you remove or comment out the disputed images, I can promote the article.  You can sort that out over time. Otherwise, this FAC continues to rattle around at the bottom of the page, waiting for this to get sorted.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I get it. Let us go for one last chance here. If it does not succeed then we will go without gandhi's image.--Anish (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PS here's a start at Google Books.
 * Gandhi, "Quit India" The New York Times 5 August, 1942. Is probably worth checking in a library. I'd imagine the NYT illustrated the text. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right Sandy, to make Elcobbola's job easier: Hope this will speed up the things.--Anish (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to image
 * And here is the copy right statement that image is in public domain
 * Different image, same issue. It's indeed acceptable if that source can be established as reliable.  Is a team of Junior college students a reliable source for assertions of copyright status?  (e.g. Do they mean PD in the U.S. or in India?  There's quite a difference and one would expect someone attune to copyright law to make the distinction.  What cited source here is the image from/provided that information?  Shouldn't we be using that source directly, not third party?)  I don't do source reliability, but the lack of specificity seems a red flag.  But, again, all is well if the reliabilitly can be supported.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this? (Postcard - i.e. published - and dated 1942). Crop as needed.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or this (1939) ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Elcobbola, you are a life saver. I have uploaded this image here. --Anish (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Three cheers for Elcobbola! Good call (imho) on copyright of the other image. Also, tremendous generosity to do our work for us! I added that website to my browser bookmarks. I've learned a lot regarding image copyright in this process, and I thoroughly approve the tough-but-fair insistance on "doing the right thing". I only hope Anish will recover from the stress regarding images and, after a breather, plow on with adding more work towards featuring Jain articles. How are we going with the overall process Sandy? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.