Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:15, 24 September 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Capankajsmilyo/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Capankajsmilyo's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Nehru's Blunders

Barnstar

		The Jain Barnstar
		For your contribution to the 'Jainism' related articles. --(nimit)

Thank you :D-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Royal Jains

Dear Pankaj, Are you sure that you have HISTRS sources for all the entries in this new template? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This template might require some cleanup. Most of the links are certain. Few links dont cite religion on their pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you haven't answered my question. HISTRS sources? Whenever you add a "religion" entry in the infobox, you should provide a reliable source with page number. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not able to understand your question. I haven't added religion in infobox, instead added links to pages stating Jainism (already) to this template. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If the information is already there in the pages, then we depend on you to check its sourcing before you add the pages to the template. This is a highly visible template! You can't add pages willy nilly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate what you mean by highly visible as this template has just been created and added to 10-12 pages only. Can you please cite a few examples to clarify on willy nilly links. Also if there are some issues in this template, please help me improve it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Highly visible" because people can scan it at one go and find all the people that Misplaced Pages is claiming to be royal Jains. You shouldn't add pages to it unless it is authentic information. Frankly you are playing with fire here. Please tread cautiously. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can cite atleast one example, that would be helpful in understanding what you mean. Are you talking about Royal or Jains? By HISTRS, you mean historical/traditional or something else? I have created the template sensing the need for such as it was very difficult to trace royal jains through any existing list or category. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Several of us have explained the idea of WP:HISTRS on your archived talk page. If you still don't know what it means, it is a serious problem. I am pinging Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff to advise you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I know HISTRS, I am getting confused about what you mean by your statement. Let me try to put my doubt this way. All the links I listed are royal figures (undoubtedly). Some of them are tradition while most are historical (I hope you are not talking about it). Their respective pages state them to be Jains or there is no reference on the page regarding religion at all. I have removed those which had a conflict regarding religion (If you are talking about this). Please help me restructure the template to improve its authenticity. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

To make it authentic, you need to go to each page listed there, check if the page mentions that the king was a Jain, and check if the information is supported by a HISTRS. You need to remove any page that doesn't satisfy these criteria. I have randomly checked a few pages, and here is what I found:

• Pushyamitra: The page doesn't say he was a Jain.
• Pulakeshin I: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page.
• Kirtivarman I: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page.
• Dantidurga: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page.
• Bhimdev I: The word "Jain" doesn't occur anywhere on the page.
• Samprati: The page says Religion is "Jainism", but it is marked as "citation needed."

So, pretty much nothing is checking out. I have no idea how you listed these people as Royal Jains. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed Links -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There are so many problems with the template!

• Includes historical figures, without justification. As was discussed at Talk:Ashoka#Religion, we should not be assigning religion to historical figures w/o proper context. For example, Jain sources claim Chandragupta to be a Jain, which is not the same as his being one (the page itself needs clean up). This is in addition to the WP:HISTRS issue.
• Similar issue with some of the mythological figures (why are they labelled "traditional" in any case?); how is Hanuman a royal?
• More basically: the template introduces a new classification scheme for this collection of historical and mythological figures. Is there a single reliable source that discusses all these figures collectively as royals?

Pinging User:SpacemanSpiff, who is more familiar with the TfD process, to see if the template should be simply removed from the pages or deleted.

And @Capankajsmilyo: your sub-par and POV editing in the area is really getting disruptive. For example, despite my advice earlier about moving pages, you moved Rama in Jainism tp Jain Ramayana without any discussion. And you have still not removed the non-RS book by Arun Kumar Jain from Sagara (Vedic king), or corrected the content to match what the sources actually say! If you continue in this vein, I think you are likely to be topic banned from Indian religion and history based articles. Abecedare (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC) fixed some grammatical and punctuation error. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ashoka was deleted hours ago. I know there is difference between historical and traditional. What is the difference between traditional and mythical? Moved Rama in Jainism giving a reason as per the bold move given in Misplaced Pages instructions. Removed Sagara book and added reliable sources. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Pankaj, I can make a suggestion that will keep you out of trouble. Create a list article with a title like "List of kings that sponsored Jainism". You can include there all the kings that your sources say supported Jainism, and include citations. Once the information is settled and verified, we can think about other formats. List articles are safe things to make. They can be edited by anybody or challenged by anybody. Categories and templates are only meant for impeccable information. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion but only if some WP:HISTRS sources can be found discussing the topic of royal patronage of Jainism (I would expcet such sources to exist). Else it would be a recipe for on-wiki synthesis and reification. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The same logic at CfD or AfD would be applicable here -- conflating history and mythology. Pankaj, you have to stop this crusade or it's not going to work out well for you. Please listen to what everyone is saying.—SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Jains

Template:Royal Jains has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

aviod

Please avoid this web page (www.fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/article/south.htm) which appears to have numerous inaccuracies. Tukol claims the Kadambas and Chalukyas were Jains and that the Gangas conquered Nepal. There may be many more of such absurd claims. Please try to use real book sources written by reputed historians.Holenarasipura (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Further, the web page calls all Hoysala kings as Jains though the dynasty of kings took to Hinduism from the time of Vishnuvardhana, and all the Rashtrakutas as Jains just because Amoghavarsha came under the influence of Jain Acharyas. Clearly, this article is not of high quality.Holenarasipura (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)