This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
This is an article about a geographical feature that has religious meaning to one or more faiths. It may be appropriate for the religious elements to be discussed in detail in other articles so as to maximise the neural point of view of this geographically orientated article. Please could editors strive for a neutral point of view and ensure they do not remove references whose views they may object to without discussion in talk. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have noticed that my edits were reverted by @ChaseKiwi. I want to notify them and all that the sources provided in the Santhal PoV are just news links which contain claims made by certain activists. This is not enough to make a strong and rooted claim and make it appear as a "disputed" site. On the contrary, just like Sarak tribal community of Jharkhand, even Santhals used to be adherents of Jainism. There is not a single archaeological or literary source existing which mentions anything about so-called Marang Buru. Therefore, I believe that such claims are un-justifiable on the wikipedia page of the holiest pilgrimage of Jains. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You agree that there is religious or other disagreement on the issue. The sources seem valid. As far as I can ascertain the name Marang Buru is widely used by certain subcultures and amongst other uses refers to the same mountain with religious significance to these subcultures. Wikipedia should objectively record such religious or other disagreements and removing such if sourced from contemporary respected sources would contravene wikipedia policy. I respect your beliefs but that is not Wikipedia policy. ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate, but I am not asking you to "respect my beliefs". I am simply asking to you to provide references and scholarly material like historical references, etc to defend your claim. Simple news links are not enough to put on wikipedia. Check Girnar page if you need to understand how the quality of citations should be in case of such contentious topics. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)Pawapuri Winds (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChaseKiwi As per Wikipedia’s content policies, please note that news reports and activist statements are not considered reliable sources for establishing long-standing historical or religious claims (see WP:RS and WP:HISTRS). Contemporary news may sometimes be cited for reporting current events, but it is not appropriate for defining the historical or religious identity of sacred sites.
If there are scholarly books, peer-reviewed journals, or established academic publications, those should be used instead. Adding unsourced or weakly sourced material risks violating WP:UNDUE by giving disproportionate weight to transient disputes.
Therefore, only well-sourced, scholarly references should be retained in the article. News links or copyright-restricted content should not be used as the basis for contentious claims. I would encourage you to provide academic references if you have them.
Please see WP:5. It is not my claim but that of subcultures which you have inadvertently implied by your wording that I am a member of. Geographical features can be notable and worthy of an article as applies here because of their meaning to more than one subculture. The essays WP:RS and WP:CITE may be helpful, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:COI to your welcome contributions to the wikipedia project. The Gimar page has a Hindu Temples section that provides the reader balance on that contentious topic with similar sources to those you dispute in error as valid to put on wikipedia. ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only entered this debate as my May 2025 message in talk was not respected and sections of the article were removed without declaration as to reason by user:Pawapuri Winds. The sourcing of views of the respective subcultures could be improved, as is often the case. ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The media sources in the given article is itself misleading, as Marang Buru is the name of tribal deity and not the mountain, as stated incorrectly. Can you explain the reason for supporting Marang Buru as the name of mountain in the page lead in bold letters? Tribals are nature worshippers and since this particular Santhal community moved over North Eastern region of India, they tend to see all the mountains, trees and rivers in that region as a sacred abode of that deity, however they do not have any legal ownership rights over them. Secondly, there is no ongoing dispute in Courts between the two communities. Few incidents happened only when the Jain community demanded enforcement of Meat ban in around 2018, and since tribals are hunters, it led to some brief tensions. Regardless, meat and alcohol ban has been upheld by the courts as per the same sources; hence this cannot be seen as a territorial land dispute. Thirdly, there is no archaeological or literary evidence to prove that Parasnath was a sacred tribal place. In contrast, there are plenty Jain manuscripts, inscriptions and royal proclamations by Kings from all over the subcontinent since atleast 772-400 BCE that associate Parasnath with Jains. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and it seems the sources can be improved. This recent peer reviewed academic source seems to contradict your first sentence comprehensively - Soren and Singh 2024. Disagreement on issues is apparently on going, with for example major objections of the Jain community to current tourist proposals as represented by Das et al.. My own very poor understanding of some of the religious issues is based on KK Mishra 2000.
Again my objection here is the removal of alternative view points, however badly referenced they were as you found them (unreferenced statements can be removed but these were not). Certainly its a minefield as I understand minority religious groups may not be counted in the Indian census and this may be seen by them as a threat to their religious identity and land rights. ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChaseKiwi I think it’s important to note that as I know Parasnath / Sri Sammed Sikhar is described in multiple Jain texts and inscriptions as the site where 20+ Tirthankaras attained nirvana. This establishes a very longstanding Jain association, far earlier than other groups’ connections. While recent newspaper reports highlight present-day disputes and multiple community claims, per WP:RS and WP:DUE we should primarily rely on scholarly and historical sources. Starry Pine (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Starry Pine even the scholarly sources need to be reliable. They should specifically cite primary historical sources and justify their claims. Otherwise, it has become too easy to publish papers in some journals. Had this been a philosophical or conceptual topic, we need not be too strict unlike in this case with historical as well as religious importance. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawapuri Winds– Yes, I fully agree with you. When I say “scholarly,” I mean historical and archaeological evidence, not just any modern publication. For me, a reliable scholarly source must be backed by primary historical records, inscriptions, or archaeological proofs. Otherwise, as you rightly said, it becomes too easy for anyone to publish papers or PDFs without real basis.
First source, looks more like a propaganda material as there is nothing like Adi-dharam mentioned in any literary or archaeological sources, hollow claims made by activists. Second source, dispute about converting the place into tourist destination is between Jains and State govt. in which Jains have already prevailed. Third, no mention of Parasnath mountain or equivalent. Please avoid indulging into topics when you don't have even basic knowledge about the subject. Rest I have already explained in above. There are news sources which mention claims that Kabba in Mecca was originally a Hindu temple, will Wikipedia's "policies" allow if I add that in the concerned pages with a loose argument like "acceptance of alternate viewpoints"? Pawapuri Winds (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see user:Starry pine. Parasnath mountain is specifically mentioned in the The Parasnath Issue section of Soren and Singh 2024 The Parasnath hill is considered to be sacred for two communities that differ ironically in way of worship, custom, rituals and diet. The Adivasis comprised 26% of the total population of Jharkhand, worshipping the hill as ‘Marang Buru’ (Supreme Deity) ... There is now a referenced alternative view point which you reject as hollow claims by activists. That is an opinion or original research (WP:OR). ChaseKiwi (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, Marang Buru is the name of deity and many locations, not just Parasnath hill, is believed to be its abode; not just as per other sources provided by you and the ones in the page's citations, but as per the Marang Buru page itself! This proves how poorly sourced this paper is. Although that page is likely created by same users who entered the propaganda material on this page, and therefore, shall be addressed later. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve reviewed the sources provided. Most of them are recent PDFs and newspaper reports, not scholarly works. Per WP:RS, newspapers are not reliable for ancient history or religious origins
Parasnath (Sammed Shikhar) is already archaeologically and historically proven to be a Jain site. There is no ambiguity about this in inscriptions, texts, or academic research. If something is already established beyond doubt, there is no need to dilute the article with newspaper opinions or recently invented claims, even if they call themselves scholarly.
The so-called “Adi-Dharma” claim has no mention in historical texts. Adding it would violate WP:DUE. Just because newspapers or fringe groups repeat it does not make it encyclopedic. For comparison, as @Pawapuri Winds said newspapers also publish claims that the Kaaba is a Hindu temple — but Wikipedia rightly rejects those as fringe. The same principle applies here.
Parasnath is the most sacred site for Jains worldwide, like the Kaaba for Muslims. Allowing baseless alternative claims would be a misrepresentation of the subject.
Per Wikipedia’s core policies (RS, DUE, and NPOV), the page must reflect established Jain heritage as proven by archaeology and history, not recently manufactured claims.
@ChaseKiwi I hope you understand — please don’t add these claims and let this page remain about Jain heritage only.
if Marang Buru is linked with many places, and inserting such claims into the most important Jain site page is rightly rejected by Wikipedia. as i know, Jains have only one important site— Shikarji /Parasnath the site where 20+ Tirthankaras attained nirvana. Please don’t add Marang Buru here.
As said at top of article This article is about the mountain. For the Jain holy site, see Shikharji.. I myself will refrain from further editing of the article at this time, even if I have identified better sources than existed previously, as I note the rules on contentious topics and that this talk disagreement is unresolved amongst the three of us. ChaseKiwi (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per above discussions, I do not see a strong reason for Marang Buru claims to be on this page, as it has its own separate page. I have reverted it. Making any further edits on this page regarding this topic should not be done without a discussion, as it wasn't done earlier as well when the content was first added. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article having been notified that you have chosen not to engage in the dispute resolution. Please ensure future edits comply with Indian social group contentious topic guidelines. I have corrected several faulty references in the Jain section as well as added geology and fauna sections and ensured the two religions to which the hill has special meaning are mentioned. The currently used name of Marang Buru in Indian English by certain social groups has been referenced from multiple sources including state organs to avoid any further ambiguity. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChaseKiwi Thank you for letting me know about the dispute resolution. I was unable to join earlier due to time, but I am committed to participating. Could you please provide me with the link to the discussion? I will take part tomorrow. In the meantime, I request that no further content changes be made to the article until consensus is reached through the dispute resolution process. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to learn this as we are all new to the processes involved. The link is at WP:DRN as already notified in talk but as you will discover the discussion is closed with a message not to edit war. I suspect the best next step is WP:RFC but there are other possibilities that you may wish to propose. That is presently up to you in first instance as I will not edit war, but will certainly engage in correct process to resolve as a dispute as to page content and orientation exists. My line all along has been this article should be orientated towards the geographical feature and try to be neutral on religious/subcultural issues. Please note you may wish to consider reinstating the page to a historic version while the dispute continues. This may be advisable as you removed new sourced page content that had nothing obvious to do with the dispute, that had been communicated in good faith in the WP:DRN discussion where discussion had to take place, and has left the page with a number of errors in references and formatting that have needed addressing for sometime. Be aware that apart from you doing a reversion of your last edit while the matter is further addressed by appropriate mechanisms the article is best presently left alone by both of us despite its obvious errors now, while we seek independent help to improve it. ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the talk page of the concerned article itself logical platform to conclude this. You may invite as many experienced editors here itself. We just don't need to state same points again. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what would happen if either of you followed my suggestion to do a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I will do this myself if no action in 48 hours by either of you. In the interest of transparency I declare that I am not a member of any religious or subcultural group for which Parasnath Hill has special significance. ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am more interested to know how much solid foundation your claims have, not whether you belong into this or not, because I noticed that many editors here do not seem to have any understanding about the concerned matters but still have baseless opinions. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The key issue from my perspective is article improvement and not your opinion about others poor understanding and baseless opinions if sourced. Both your edits and that of user:Starry Pine removed sourced material. As far as I can ascertain from the diffs until I corrected the issue, having had my attention drawn by this debate to multiple new issues in the article, such as the statements referred to by sources Easterman 1943, Balfour 1885 and University of Calcutta 1845 were unsourced, but this was never corrected by multiple other editors after I last comprehensively reviewed the article in May 2025 and ensured it had verifiable sources. Text backed by sources referring to judicial findings, and peer reviewed sources not subject to a current statement of concern appear reasonable to use, as do the text and sources I used on the geology and fauna of the hill. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Please see diff 1313154152 which was offered as an improvement on this article on a prominent and notable geographical feature. This was not accepted by two other editors who have removed sourced content, possibly as they are of the view that the religious notability of the feature for one of two relevant religions/subcultures is most important. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably me but I'm not sure exactly what the disputed content is.
If @ChaseKiwi has put the correct diff in there – which I doubt – then one version includes this photo, and the other doesn't. Also, one version has the map shown with a portrait orientation, and the other has the same map in landscape. (The landscape version causes a pretty severe MOS:SANDWICH problem on my screen.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
