Talk:Acharya Vidyasagar/Archive 1

Archive 1

This Article Has No Citations

This article should be deleted for not having any sources. Every origin of information begins with a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.129.7 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose and Original Research Tags

Much of the article is an arbitrary mixture of prose and list which is not up to the standards. Also, it seems to contain original research due to lack of sources which covers the topic. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"A source of inspiration for"

This article repeatedly uses the phrase "a source of inspiration for" and I don't think it means what the author thinks it does. It's also not good to repeat the same phrase that many times. 174.25.204.125 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

List of initiates

The subject of this article is far outside my sphere of knowledge, so I don't want to go ahead and remove this without discussion. But I don't see how the article benefits from this impractically long list of (presumably non-notable, as none of them have wiki links) monks initiated by the article's subject. Additionally, a source is provided for the statement that he's initiated more than any other, but I don't see this information anywhere in the source (perhaps the website has changed since the source was added?). The list itself appears to be entirely unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.37.118 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

His family and lineage

His birth family as well his lineage are very well known and documented. I am surprised they are missing from the article.

Malaiya (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Chaturmas?

I was hoping someone could shed some light on this. So we've got Onlyarchitjain25 who seems to be trying to make it his mission to include an external ref that's all about Chaturmas, thing is, I can see that we have an article all about that already. I wound up here via checking contribs in the newusers log so I don't really know about this subject. Don't suppose a third set of eyes can specify if the link should be here or in Chaturmas, can they? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 12:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness: Chaturmas link that a new user is trying to add is specific as it is about the chaturmāsa (four months stay) of Acharya Vidyasagar. -Nimit (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll self-revert so it's back in then. Thanks. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He is an Acharya, not a monk

"Vidyasagar (Jain monk)" is not a monk. He is an Acharya.

I don't think anyone searches for "Vidyasagar (Jain monk)" He is always referred to as Acharya Vidyasagar.

People search for Mahatma Gandhi (not Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Hindu Politician), Pope Benedict XVI (not Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, Catholic Priest), Lal Bahadur Shastri (not Lal Bahdur, Indian Prime Minister).

Malaiya (talk)

I suggest the article should be renamed Acharya Vidyasagar. It would be both easier to search and appropriate.

Malaiya (talk)

Completely agree with you. -Nimit (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tag

@Farang Rak Tham: Please kindly elaborate why you feel this tag should be there because the explanation you gave isn’t sufficient. Moreover, if you feel any line is a fan statement, I request you to remove or modify it or at least point it out. I wish to remove this tag as soon as possible.-Nimit (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I came across this article because of the GA nomination.There is a lot of peacock language in it, e.g. Several researchers have studied his works for masters and doctoral degrees. This sentence doesn't provide any substantial information, apart from praising the subject.

There are many other examples in the article, in which the Acharya's performance in several fields are listed, but without providing sufficient historical context, or without explaining what kind of person the Acharya is, or what kind of character he has, or what his views or preferences are. And often the language is vague, it reads like an advertisement.

Examples are abundant: Acharya Vidyasagar has been a source of inspiration for religious functions. (isn't every religious leader a source of inspiration?); He has initiated more than 125 monks,[11][12] a number unmatched in the past nine centuries. (are there statistics on this?); Acharya Vidyasagar has been a source of inspiration for the construction, development and renovation of Jain temples and images all over India. (So what did he do?); There is a belief that his blessings may bring victory in elections (is this unique to this Acharya?); etc, etc. There may also be problems with the sources used, if there are any secondary sources at all.

I am sure you can do more justice to the Acharya if you add more depth in the article and more context. See also WP:NPOV and WP:WTW.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Thank you for explaining all your concerns. Will definitely work on them.-Nimit (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I don;t mean to fault you or anyone else, just trying to provide feedback before we can actually start a GA review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I wish to discuss a statement you pointed out: Acharya Vidyasagar has been a source of inspiration for the construction, development and renovation of Jain temples and images all over India.; You have asked ‘what did he do?’ but the statement is explanatory. He was a ‘source of inspiration‘. A Digambara monk can’t do more than that. Nothing more is permitted by code of conduct.-Nimit (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood that part, but what did he say, what did he teach? If you are going to praise the Acharya in an encyclopedic article, be specific. See WP:PEACOCK.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed that statement too, even though it was meant of information and not for praise. The statement regarding scholars doing research on his works is for fact and not for praise. I know it needs an elaboration. Another statement you pointed out suggested that the number of monks initiated by Acharya is unmatched in the past centuries. As I can see reference has been provided for this. It must be a conclusion of somebody’s research. Do we really need stats here? Point is, it is a recorded fact that due to muslim conquests from the 12th century, the jaina sangha especially the Digambara sect faced persecution and therefore, it isn’t possible that so many monks were present during these times. Please give your suggestion and see if the tag can be removed now.–Nimit (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:PEACOCK yet, Nimit? It is not just presenting facts, it's how you present them. The article looks like a resume. There is a list of things he accomplished in his life. But there's nothing about the Acharya's birth, youth. There's nothing much about his views. I don't doubt the things you are writing about are true, but there isn't a complete picture.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Offcourse, I have read it. -Nimit (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Acharya Vidyasagar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   2b was not evaluated given the immediate failure for criteria 4. 2d refers to heavy copying from this source

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Page is written from a "fan" POV throughout and is not neutrally worded.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Being immediately failed per reason 1 for criteria 4 being too far off for fixing with-in a normal review.

Section on Works

The information in the section is accurate. Many of his works are not yet included, for example his verse translation of samana Suttam.

Malaiya (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Guptisagar and Pushpdantsagar acknowledge their association with Acharya Vidyasagar

जैन (talk | contribs) removed "They acknowledge their association with Acharya Vidyasagar." stating "→‎His tradition: rm unsourced claims, citation needed tag added"

Yes they acknowledge their discipleship, although they are themselves distinguished. See

• http://www.jain24.com/jain-upadhyay-shri-gupti-sagar-ji/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDAEiR1_dU4

Live(1/1/2018) Sri Gupti sagar ji | Vishal Bhajan Sandhiya -2 | ( Delhi)Rana PrartapBag

• http://www.jinaagamsaar.com/aacharya/pushpdantsagar.php

"This came true when he received the chance to feed Adhyatma Yogi Sant Shiromani Acharya Vidyasagarji Maharaj in 1978."

Acharya Vidyasagar's staus has risen far beyound even an Acharya. He is occasionally compared with a Tirthankra, although that has been generally unthinkable until recent times. Malaiya (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)