Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Mahavira

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Mahavira edit

(
)
Mahavira
Mahavira

Improved to Good Article status by Capankajsmilyo (talk), जैन (talk), Sainsf (talk) and Baffle gab1978 (talk). Nominated by Capankajsmilyo (talk) at 10:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC).

-Nimit (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • , GA Article is long enough and posted by due date. Hooks are interesting. Original hook needs a specific citation. Other two hooks are cited and verified. Nominator and first author has probably less than 5 DYKs to his credit which needs to be confirmed. Img is freely licensed.Nvvchar. 03:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Is it approved? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Now ready for re-review. I shared the same concerns as Nvvchar, and am not sure how this article received GA status, given that the lead was a poor summary of the article and did not do justice to the subject by explaining his relevance as such an important figure in world history. I have now fixed the lead, bringing some new sources. This means that the original hook is now cited in the article. I have struck ALT1 as it is confusing and arguably misleading. I have also struck ALT2, because most scholars believe that the first 22 tirthankaras were likely more legendary than historical.
I would suggest going with the original cite - the brevity of it is the best part, as it should make readers curious to read the article itself. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has WP:Copyvio / WP:PLAG issues that need attention. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The discussion about these issues is ongoing on the article's talk page. Adding new icon; no point in calling for a reviewer until there's a determination there that the issues have been resolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up: we have found proof that the Zimmer source is still under copyright and noted that fact on the talk page, so the incorporated material from that source must be removed, quoted, or rewritten. Will allow the standard seven days for this effort to be started. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to do a final check of article; there have been over 50 edits since the April 16 comments here. As far as I can tell, despite the earlier tag on the Zimmer source stating that information from it was incorporated into the article, this was actually not the case, aside from a quoted footnote (and since it was quoted and the quote sourced, it's just like any other quote from a source and not an issue because it's not all that long). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have concerns about several aspects of this article. My biggest concern is that parts of this article fail to draw the distinction between Mahavira the historical figure and the mythology surrounding him in the Jain tradition. Lines such as
  • "He was called Mahavira ("the great hero") because of the acts of bravery he performed during his childhood"
  • "After twelve years of rigorous penance, at the age of 43, Mahavira achieved the state of Kevala Jnana (omniscience or infinite knowledge) under a Sāla tree"
  • "After his birth, anointment and abhisheka (consecration)—carried out by Indra on Mount Meru, the axis of the central cosmic contingent of Jambudvipa—he was given the name Vardhamāna"
  • "Mahavira was born as Marichi, the son of Bharata Chakravartin in one of his previous births"
present mythology as historical fact (though I am aware that they are often difficult for historians to separate). The hook and corresponding sentence in the article is an example of this problematic style (I don't want to cite WP:INUNIVERSE but whatever the equivalent would be); the article seems a bit contradictory on this point, stating that "Mahavira is often considered the founder of Jainism" but also stating that "Mahavira is often called the founder of Jainism, but this was not the case because the Jain tradition recognizes his predecessors and he is considered the 24th Tirthankara" - yes, but his predecessors (with the possible exception of Parshvanatha) are generally thought to be mythological, or else early proponents of a religion which later became Jainism, for whom the historical record has been lost. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone considers Parshvanatha the original founder of Jainism, even though it's likely he was historical and preceded Mahavira; it might be better to go with the common practice of considering Mahavira to be the founder.
Furthermore, readers unfamiliar with the topic are likely to be confused by a hook stating that "[person they've never heard of] was not the founder of Jainism". Intelligentsium 22:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There also seemed to be some minor stylistic issues such as inconsistent use of AD/A.D./BC/CE, inconsistent ENGVAR (travellers + worshipers) which I tried to fix where I could but these are of much less concern. Intelligentsium 22:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to resolve the issues mentioned. However, its not clear what is it you want to say about Parshvanatha. Jain tradition do recognise 23 predecessors. Historically, existence of Parshvanatha and his preaching of Jainism is also properly cited. So I am not able to understand the issue about that. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. I think my real concern is, does the source say "Mahavira is often considered the founder of Jainism but this is wrong because Parshvanatha/one of the previous Tirthankaras should be identified as the actual founder", or is this the synthesis of the author of the page based on the existence of previous Tirthankaras? Often some form of a religion will have existed long before the figure traditionally identified as the founder was born (for example, Abraham in the case of Jews), so it's better to go with the common practice rather than try to deduce. In either case, an alternate hook is required as for many readers the hook "... that Mahavira was not the founder of Jainism?" is no more significant than "... that Mahavira was not the founder of Christianity?" or "... that Mahavira was not the founder of Buddhism?", etc. Intelligentsium 01:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Following are some of alts
  • Length, date, and article verified. AGF offline sources. ALT2 is the best in my opinion. Intelligentsium 17:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mahavira&oldid=1018095264"