Talk:Dasaratha Jataka

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thank you all for guiding me. Some imperfections were quite expected as this is my first created article. But you all's advice is quite helpful. Earlier I thought there's no need to cite as I think information is common and will not lead to controversy. But I've cited it different souces now. I've write the synopis using various source but mistakenly cited the source where the name of the characters are not included, which might have confused you that it was original research. But I corrected it now.

I've improved many imperfections but still need you all's help. Can anyone please help me with hoe to improve the "notability" and "confusing" issue?JaMongKut (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ramayana

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been recurring POV attempts here to disassociate this Jataka tale from the Ramayana, which as the sources in the article make amply clear is the original source.

This recent attempt at WP:SYNTHESIS falsily claims that [citing different Britannica articles] that the Atthakatha commentary of the Pali Canon predates the Ramayana. This is synthesis, i.e. WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, basing it only on the approximate dates provided in the Britannica articles [1], [2]; moreover the assertion of the Atthakatha being a century older than the Ramayana is fake, per Britannica both of these date back to the 3rd-century BCE.

The Valmiki Ramayana reached its current form by the 5th-3rd centuries BCE, but its antecedents (oral and otherwise) date back to the 7th-century BCE or earlier, predating even the Pali Canon. This Jataka tale is but a later rescension/version of the Ramayana tale.

Similarly, the Mahabharata which in its current form is dated back to, a similar time period as the Ramayana, the 4th-century BCE but has been determined to be the older of the two Indian epics with the core story dated centuries earlier (perhaps a millenia, cf. Battle of the Ten Kings). Gotitbro (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic