Talk:Tirthankara/Archive 1

Archive 1

Table

Shouldn't the Narration Chart of 24 Tirathankars table be split so it can be seen convineiently?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it must be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.219.155 (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Tirthankar → Tirthankara – Standard title. Proper IAST usage as used in academic sources Arjun^codename024 11:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support on grounds of consistency. We already have Mahavira. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - reason:proper IAST usage. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom. I am surprised this is not already at "Tirthankara"--Sodabottle (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: tirthankar[1] beats tirthankara 3:1[2]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Mahavir" also definitely beats "Mahavira" in Google Hits. AFAIK, Many Indian languages (like Hindi) shun the ending "-a" sound of Sanskrit; and the speakers of the languages dominate India in number. Same as "Ram" for Rama in Northern India. I guess we need to stick with the proper Sanskrit transliteration. Arjun^codename024 12:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is तीर्थंकर in Sanskrit and not तीर्थंकरा , giving it the extra a would make it sound like the later, which it isn't, neither in Sanskrit, nor Maharashtri Prakrit, the language of the Jain texts. See, we have a system of Romanisation, it is how names are prefered to be written by Indians, like your user name Arjun अर्जुन , do you use Arjuna??? or myself Yogesha??? Don't Romanise on the whims of etic sources. See the Chinese system. When we went to school we spelt the fellow Heun Sang, now the Wikipedia title is Xuanzang, the Chinese prefer it to spell it that way. They are happy I am happy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Check this out, I used तीर्थंकर [3] and तीर्थंकरा[4] 22k former only 6 later.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indians use English in day to day use, Indians spell proper names, ie they Romanise. An international committee shouldn't tell us how to write our names in a language we are familiar with. Was IATA or whatever consulted when Mumbai, or Kolkata or Bengalaru, proper nouns in three different Indian languages were Romanised???Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If i am not mistaken, your search results on certain "Devanagiri strings" are returning Hindi results. Sanskrit is a language without a native script, so we need to stick to the proper IAST usage, whatever it is. When you say that "it is how names are preferred to be written by Indians" you are infact pointing to what is preferred by the Hindi-speaking population and others' whose native language shuns the ending "-a". My proposal to move the page was based on my assumption that IAST form would be "Tirthankara". I had referred with another user is a regular with Jainism articles (link) who told me that "Tirthankara" was the IAST. If the IAST is "Tirthankar" i will rest my case, else we must go with "Tirthankara". I couldn't find an online IAST source, can anyone? Arjun^codename024 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW in my school, i was taught Jainism has 24 Tirthankaras. Arjun^codename024 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) No dear Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengalaru aint Hindi. (2)And whoever said Sanskrit is without a native script??? All you can say with accuracy is that it doesn't have a unique script used over the many thousands of years it has been used. (3) Isn't Tirthankar Maharashtri Prakrit?? Thisthat you are the expert here??? (4)The google search, I didn't doctor it, the text string is in Devnagri, so it returned Devnagri results. (5)Devnagari is used by many languages, Marathi, Hindi, Sanskrit (official see the script used on bank notes), Nepali, Bhojpuri, Kokani, and even Roma, perhaps also Pali and Ardha Magadhi (6)My logic is simple, if Arjun spells his name Arjun (emic use) a committee shouldn't change it to Bskvm. (7)If Wikipedia Romanises Chinese proper names the way they Romanise it, there should be no reason why India should be treated differently. Don't duck this point. (8)Don't take committees too seriously, we are writing English and not Newspeak, look at Ghoti, don't take English too seriously, and please don't whine about Hindi, it is irrelevant. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is simple. There is no standard way "how names are preferred to be written by Indians". The closest is the IAST. Arjun^codename024 04:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Ya India doesn't have a standard Romanisation like pinyin, the official system which if you don't follow, are thrown into jail, and are there until all your organs are removed to be sold and you die. (2)But India does have a popular way in which a name is spelt, like Arjun is. I have given evidence that Tirthankar is more popular than Tirthankara. (3) So freedom is India's undoing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support The IAST transliteration is "Tīrthaṃkara". Google scholar however has less entries for "Tīrthaṃkara" and the diacritics less "Tirthankara" compared to "Tirthankar". But it's reversed on Google books where the traditional Sanskrit rendering is a lot more common. Part of the issue on scholar appears to be multiple published people with the name "Tirthankar" as opposed to articles about Tirthankara/Tirthankar. Since diacritics use isn't very common in scholarly discussion of the topic, a move to "Tirthankara" is fine. —SpacemanSpiff 09:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, Spaceman. In the 1,200 odd Google scholar results for "Tirthankar," at least three-quarters are names of the authors themselves, all of scientific articles. Apparently it is a popular Bengali first name. If you begin to binarily exclude the authors last names, you can whittle it down to 300 results, which was as far as I got, and perhaps even to zero if you have patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I was veering towards stating in my follow on statement there about "published people with the name Tirthankar", but I guess I forgot to complete the trail of thought. I couldn't actually find any related to this article in the first 3-4 pages of the gscholar search, I'm guessing you've gone even further than that. Eitherways, this is a straightforward move so I don't think these stats should matter. —SpacemanSpiff 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

File:Shree Simandhar Swami.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shree Simandhar Swami.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Shree Simandhar Swami.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unclear article

The article contains too much of Jargon in the lead section. Words like keval jnana, arihant etc would not make sense to a non-Jain. Atleast the lead section should be clear enough to build the interest of the reader. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tabular display for mythological data

Is the tabular display of mythological data (names, signs, colors etc) relevant to the article? I am removing it (the table as well as the data) for now. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:The Rahul Jain#article about jain Tirthankara) hi rahul happy to see you contribution to jainism article in wikipedia. I want to fetch your attention toward article Tirthankara. You have removed the table which used to give a lot of information about tirthankara. I want to know the reason though i am new to wikipedia editing but if you can't find the source of information i can help you with it. few such sources are [5] [6]

I understand these things are "technical and require huge amount of clarification" as you said but we can't delete that information from wiki page. Other way is to edit each thirthankar page and give information with explanation or form a separate wiki page giving height of each theerthankar and explain the decrease of height with change in time (kaal-parivartna)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravjns (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the sources. However, I do not think they count as reliable source. Please be sure to go through Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. If the reliability of those sources are established, we can insert those data. Cheers. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittannica is a perfectly fine source. I'm going to revert your removal of the table; the table provides much more info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, but the other two sources seems unreliable and Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention all of the information that is there in the table. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right on that, if there are no reliable sources which give that information, then it's fair too remove that info. yet, give Gauravjns also the opportunity to provide sources. Google helps, for example [7], [8] and p50. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Okies! Rahul Jain (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder if those sources are really problematic; it's not controversial info is it?), and it's additional to the Brittannica-source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If by problematic you mean unreliable, then those sources might fall into self-published source which are usually not reliable. If there does not exists reliable source to back them, I do not think it belongs on wikipedia. I really doubt that any reliable source would cover such minor details. Rahul Jain (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

tīrthaṅkara vs Tirthankara

Ogress In tīrthaṅkara, the character ṅ is not visible on my device. So I presume, it might not be visible on others as well. Should it be changed to Tirthankara? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Leave it in parens at the beginning. It was half and half earlier so I picked one. Ogress _smash! 06:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ogress parens ?-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Parentheses. Nvm, I did it myself. Ogress _smash! 08:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)