Talk:Parshvanatha

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 · count) 05:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

text: "The differences between the ideas between Parshvanatha and Mahavira", this is the primary point of my dispute and tags. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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 · count) 06:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 · count) 06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Digambara, Svetambara in the time of Parshvanatha

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit Talk 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  historicity