Jainism was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 17, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
December 9, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 13, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 11, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 22, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
May 7, 2013Good article nomineeListed
June 10, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
July 30, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
June 14, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 31, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
March 7, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
July 3, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
April 30, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
December 15, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Contents

Jain Flag as first Info BoxEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

KundakundakundaEdit

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)

Arihant DharmaEdit

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 MisunderstandingEdit

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)

Return to "Jainism" page.