Talk:Jainism and non-creationism

message: Hi, Thanks for your contribution to Project Jainism. Please discuss on What basis you have rated the article as Start Class article. I believe that it should be rated atleast "GA" or "B" class and has a potential to be FA with some corrections. Your failure to respond will result in changing it to GA class. I am also copying it in talk pages of Jainism_and_non-creationism for records. Please discuss the same for Nathuram_Premi--Anish Shah 06:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe that this is a B-class article, but it is a far cry from being GA. A Good Article would have virtually no easily noticeable grammatical errors, a few pictures, possibly in infobox (if there is one for the topic), and it should be formatted better. Also, remember that GA-class articles normally go through an intensive nomination process. However, it is much better than Start class. A few pictures (I don't think an infobox would work here) could easily make this a B-class article. I would like to hear User:Warlordjohncarter's input. --Qmwne235 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments were left on the peer review subpage earlier. It is the case that the difference between grades is a difficult one, and this could be seen as either a high-"Start" or a low-"B". Personally, I've always tried to take the more cautious, and thus lower, ranking, but I can see how it others would disagree. John Carter 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for the suggestions. I think B-class seems to be fair enough unless more improvements as suggested are carried out.--Anish Shah 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating of this Article without providing the reasons 

message: Hi Dab, this is with reference to your proposal to merge the article “Jainism and non-creationism” with “Jain cosmology”. At the time of creation of this article, I had originally considered putting up this article either with “Jain Cosmology” or with “God in Jainism”, as the issues are related. However, I felt that a new article tackling the issue of non-creationism in Jainism would be better served if a separate article is created. Following are the reasons:
*Jain cosmology deals with the Jaina time cycle and the Jain conception of universe. 
*On the other hand, “Jainism and non-creationism” is focused on the non-creationism aspect of Jainism with reference to the “Jaina concept of Universe”, “Jaina concept of reality”, “Concept of divinity”, “Nature of Karmas” and the theory of “material cause and effect”.
*Please note that the “Concept of divinity”, “Nature of Karmas” and the theory of “material cause and effect” which are necessary to understand the non-creationism cannot fit into Jain cosmology.
*The criticisms of Creationism and non-creationism in other Indian philosophies with reference to Jainism also does not fit into the topic of Jain cosmology. 
*Jain Cosmology should ideally discuss in detail the reals in Jain philosophy like matter, time, medium of motion, medium of rest and space which are not required to be discussed in detail in Jainism and non-creationism.
*Merging of these two articles will create an unnecessary clutter without focus.
Hence in my opinion, Jainism and non-creationism” with “Jain cosmology” should not be merged.--Anish 04:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: at present, this article is in violation of WP:CFORK, since it essentially rehashes the topic of Jainism in general. If you can reduce it to a strictly limited discussion of "Jainism and non-creationism", based on sources that directly address Jainism and non-creationism, that would be perfect. Pending that, we need to merge it to avoid the curse of unmaintainable redundancy. Note that Jain cosmology is in bad shape itself, and should rather be merged into this article than vice versa, but its title is more comprehensive and thus better suited. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response on merging this Article with Jain cosmology

message: It should be noted that the GA rating is really reserved only for those articles which have received that rating through Wikipedia:Good articles. This article has not received that rating from that body. That rating is received by nominating it for GA status at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Only after receiving an affirmative review should any article be given the GA class marking. On that basis, I am changing the assessment rating to "B" until such time as it has been approved for it by the appropriate entity. At this point, the article does not seem to have even been nominated, let alone approved, for receiving GA status. It should also be noted that the rules of Good articles state that only someone who has not contributed to the article can make such a review. John Carter 16:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rating

message: Upon its review on October 17, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
::contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, , , , , etc, or large numbers of , , , or similar tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria.  It contains two "off topic" tags, which count among the clean up tags. Also fails the stability criterion, since there are also two merge requests for this article. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jainism and non-creationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705164341/http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/F005SECT3 to http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/F005SECT3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As a reader uninvolved in this topic, I'd just like to add a thought I had when viewing the article. I noticed the Criticisms of Jain non-creationist theory lacks any potential contrasts that could be drawn between Jain non-creationism and the scientific consensus that the universe has a beginning. Ypna (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Jain non-creationist theory – from science