Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India

message: Hello, I am an outside observer. As far as I can see, there is no real dispute. The claims of "Buddhist persecution" are made by Buddhist scripture.However, just about all academic sources (including eminent premier top notch Kluge Chair holding super-duper historian Romila Thapar) refute the exaggerations strongly as cited in the article. Whats more accusations of Hindu-Nationalist bias against Freedom skies are comical given that he cites Romila Thapar a know anti-Hindutva (i.e Hindu nationalism) speaker. Academic sources carry preference over religious scripture, which is invariably partisan. Can Tigeroo produce historical or scholarly narrative that supports the Buddhist claims to the letter?  अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 15:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No he (tigeroo) cant. Romila Thapar is known for virulent anti-Hindu polemic under the guise of "academics". allegations of Hindutva are thrown around way too frequently on wikipedia by anti-Hindus who wish to attack Hindus for their religious beliefs.Bakaman 16:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PK Misra and his archaelogical evidence and Marshall are cited in the text in addition to the original author, beside Elst and Thapar. Every single line in that section is cited. I just state that it is uncertain and that there is debate and this needs to be accordingly reflected. There is no mention of Hindutva, nor of Elst polemical hindutva stance. I am just acknowledging both the POV's. The dispute however seems to stretch on to other sections as well judging by the revert and I just want to resolve this amicably.--Tigeroo 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older discussions 

message: Tigeroo filled the table with nine issues - thank you for that! I now realize that I may have been unrealistic in thinking the entries could remain short - especially since I also need a column for my comment. According to my plan, I should now copy Tigeroo's original list here and then go through the table to shorten it, but I now realize it won't be easy, and I probably will make mistakes. At least those mistakes will show where I misunderstand an issue. So please bear with me. Or does anybody have a better idea how to prevent the table from bursting? I would like to keep the table since it gives me a good overview. — Sebastian 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the issues list 

message: diffs	proposed solution                                                                                             	explanation
     	Information too long to paste in here, but comprehensive information from multiple reputable academic sources.	Muhammad bin Qasim is not part of any "decline of Buddhism". He is rather regarded as having been welcomed to overthrow what was seen a Hindu usurping dynasty that oppressed the Jats. His army of 6,000 cavalry was bolstered by local alliances from the Jats who boosted his force by supplying the infantry so that there were 30-50,000 that engaged in the larger battles. His time span in sindh was  between 3-4 years. He did convert the main city stupas to the main city mosques but mainstream academics do not regards this as "oppression" but as a "marking  a stamp of conquest". He is infact credited for leniency and the introduction of the Hanafi school of thought, and setting the trend of inclusion of Brahmin and Buddhist elites into administration. Buddhism as mentioned in the BBC article was already in decline and it took centuries for the conversion to take place. 3 Centuries later when Ghazni came there were plenty of stupas to sack. - Tigeroo
What's the bone of contention? 07:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The accuracy of the historical representation in reference to his impact upon the article topic. Listing of select facts without context under a sub-heading under this article is creating an inaccurate representation.--Tigeroo 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. Tigeroo seems to be missing Quasim destroying a Buddhist holy site and building a mosque in it's place Pakistan: ps:pakistan,cultural Guide(p+) By Marian Rengel and demolishing temples and monasteries, e.g. he built at Nirun a mosque on the site of the temple of Budh. Elliot & Dowson: History of India, vol.1, p.158 Note that this is strictly an abridged version, more citations covering his persecution in detail can be provided. Freedom skies| talk  18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Status: Waiting for any reference from Tigeroo, for exact quote from Freedom skies. — Sebastian 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the sources has this to say. Freedom skies| talk  17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, I don't have a Google account. If it was just for me, I'd consider signing up, but we also want to document this for other people who may come later and question our decision. Could you therefore please add the important part of the text verbatim? — Sebastian 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any issues with the above events, just that selective presentation gives an inaccurate picture of Qasim's true impact. I don't think I missed any of the events cited, I have no issues with including them. The Nerun mosque was included as well references that there were a few more similar incidents as well as the subsequent ban on such actions extended after the conquest. I had a much more expansive version up which gave better context and was also based on more modern and reputed sources. i.e Elliot is over a 100 years old. More particulary it also directly addressed the change in legal status this resulted in to Buddhists and what that meant to them, muslim proslytization in the region and the rate of conversion. It also touched upon the political situation of dissent of the predominantly buddhist population of a hindu monarch. These were based on sources that directly discussed and evaluated the impact of Muslim conquest under Muhammad bin Qasim on the local religions in light of the entire corpus of material available on the events of the period. --Tigeroo 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by "I had a much more expansive version up"? Could you please provide a link? I see your points, and in addition, I also don't like the fact that paragraph 3 is separated from paragraph 1 by a paragraph that seems to have nothing to do with the two. I'd love to see a better version for this. — Sebastian 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This diff should highlight the changes proposed in Qasim.--Tigeroo 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see! Given that Freedom skies has not pointed out any fault with your text since he deleted it on Jan 11, I will replace the text with your version and close this issue as resolved. This means that you are both free to copyedit and improve it; in particular I can imagine that Freedom skies may want to add the information about the first mosque in the appropriate place. — Sebastian 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I edited it in a manner that retains both versions. It's done. Freedom skies| talk  05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I just see a very truncated section which gives no perspective and once uses out-dated and less reliable sources than the one which was replaced. Also sources are not specific to page numbers etc. It also uses language that the Neutrality project commented on changing. Also before making the changes on the page we were supposed to make a proposal here and discuss if there were any issues instead of making adhoc changes. Some issues "Muhammad Bin Quasim is linked with Islamic persecution of Buddhists", is not in the source this is and sentence that is attempting to link the next with the above. Qasim only converted the main "worship place" of certain towns to one of the new conquerors. Not really "persecution" but more of a victory standard stamped there. Can see appleby, the same is just duplicated later below the main instance was at Nerun. The Samanis ignores that Nerun had already been in contact with the Caliph ever since the first failed attempt before Qasim and simply opened its gates to Qasim and provided him with a place to replenish his forces in alliance, not in capitulation like various other cities. There is no claim, it is just a historical repore from the various sources. The entire proslytization section is missing which is actually critical to show how Buddhism declined timewise in the region. The jizya did not single out Buddhists. After the conquest the stupas were financed for rebuilding and their destruction was forbidden by law. Now it's a different case if this situation continued to exist or not, but Qasim was only there for 3 years and barely after his conquest so we can't anything about such things under Qasim administration. Generally Qasim's immediate impact was quite minor it was his policy decisions and his conquest that set a tone for the region.--Tigeroo 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just reverted Freedom skies's edits because they were neither explained in the edit summary, nor on the talk page, nor here. They were obviously far from minor edits - in fact, from Tigeroo's reply I realized that they contained at least some reversions of what we had agreed here. I am keeping the issue closed, but that does not  mean that anyone can just edit them to an extent that counters what was decided here, especially if there is ample time for explaining one's concerns!  — Sebastian 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The decline section as reworded by Tigeroo does not deal with the actual decline at all, you restored a version which deals with how well the conquerer treated his people and omits any moslem desecration of stupas at all. Tigeroo's version has once again, resulted in lavish praises for rulers who verifiably destroyed Buddhist sites and yet my version is reverted. Secondly, we should either have the text mentioned here or have Sebastian put it in the article and not edit ourselves. The article in it's current form is severely polluted due to problems such as these.Freedom skies| talk  12:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I see clear mention of stupas and those of Nirun and was even expanded to say other such stupas went down as well. The only thing I don't see is only mention of destruction but other things as well.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see where the jizya is mentioned as being for other than non-muslims, but how does that contrast or factor in as being responsible for the decline of buddhism under Qasim's reign needs to be explained if it has to be placed in this article at all. On your sources, Eliot is very dated, over a 100 years old and there are no pages for Engel which is repeating the same information as Eliot anyway. The same information is just sourced from Appleby which is much more authoritative and is even more specific rather than a vague statement of some holy site. Yes he stamped his conquest with by demolishing a few stupas and imposing the jizya but that is not the same as Qasim impacted a Buddhist decline, they were on his side though as subject clients. You are talking about the wrong man, if you want to say Ghazni or Timur etc than you have something.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll tackle them item by item so we can have a better chance at resolving at least some if not all:
#Jizya is being implied as being responsible for the decline by it's manner of usage. I agree it is overboard and needs trimming if we work on either making the relevance of the information as directly visible otherwise it needs to be contextualized to counter the impression. If the tax is responsible you will have to demonstrate how that tax contributed to the decline otherwise it is either a stray or it could also imply by lack of mention that muslims were exempt and only non-muslims were taxed which is not true they had a different tax. Also the tax gave them not only the right to practice their faith, but also absolvement from military service so both need mention to balance the context. We can trim it or scratch it, or alternative you can get specific to link how the tax played a role then we can go ahead and improve the article content. Appleby however does not link the jizya to a decline especially under Qasim.
# Primary sources are a problem, so thats an additional problem. Tertiary sources are better because they put things in context. A US Marine raped a fillipna civilian. It is a fact, but put by it's own in an article about Persecution of filipinos it implies that the US Army is responsible for persecuting filipinos. This is why Appleby is a better source.
# I have not inserted my personal opinions into the article. No, such a thing does not amount to persecution, see above. It is discrimination. Persecution would be if the stupa destruction was a systematic and endemic active policy, i.e. it was persistent. In Qasim's case it was limited to making sure that the "main" place of worship in his new kingdom was one that belonged to his religion, and not even in all cities at that. It did not entail the mass destruction of temples or the uprooting of the priestly class. Again the poll tax was a levy placed on conquered people. This was done by all kings and empires, however jizya stands out as it is rooted in religious difference. As for the content question, the bigger question is are you content that they are in your country? Content is no related to persecution. If there are other more viable examples we can use them. Anyway, my opinions are only for elaboration of my though process and of my findings so at the end of day it verifiable and reliable content that matters and if I cannot back it up I can't use it. As it stands I have incorporated the stupa destruction into. Generally I agree the Qasim section is too large because of all the "muslim" rulers that could have been picked on for making a better case, he is a flimsy one. If you have sources that can shed more light on persecution sure go ahead, in the end it's actual matter that matters so to speak.--Tigeroo 12:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Itemized:
#There is personal opinion inserted. Sourced information about the jizya imposed in sindh by qasim. It's not even collated from different sources or sections it all together in the same section that deals with qasim in the source that mentions jizya.
#Please do not confused the name Chach-nama with the same original Chach-nama. The references are not directly linked to the actual content of the primary source but is not made reference to the commentary made in the introduction. That qualifies as a tertiary source.
#Once again no personal opinions or editorializations are introduced into the article. All information I have placed is from academic sources and directly about Qasim. If there is a specific sentence that is of concern let me know and we can address it directly.
#Keep your personal opinions of what is relevant to the decline out of the matter please and bring RS that specificallys make the connection.
#Qasim and the decline of Buddhism is going to be hard to link, beyond that he conquered the territory and therebey opened up the region to political and philosophical influences of the Muslim world. I would be more than interested myself to find out otherwise as I have more than a passing acquaintance with his history. See the provided reference about the conversion and decline of the hindu population in the region.
#Again about Kufi, please bring RS sources etc and please make them historically equivalent. Similar actions can easily be documented of Chach of Alor himself during his conquest etc. Please also take a quick survey of historical war behavior and the concept of POW. In the historical sense limiting the executions was itself abnormal. Again, no reliable academic ties the decline of Buddhism to war casualties, the dangers of using primary sources are inherent in this example.--Tigeroo 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #6: Decline @ Qasim 

message: diffs	proposed solution                                                                                                	explanation
     	Therefore in Arabic chronicles it is not always evident if Buddhists, Hindus or other Indian religions are meant.	This section needs a citation and seems to be an editorialization.  - Tigeroo
I suggest a removal of this line. The line is of very little consequence to the actual "Decline of Buddhism in India" issue. Freedom skies| talk  20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since neither of the two sides seems to like this text, and I agree that it has precious little to do with the subject, I will remove it and consider this item closed. Hooray, our first success!  — Sebastian 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #8: But @ Islam 

message: ==== #9: Temples @ Islam - misunderstood ====
The gray bordered subsection is only kept for historical purposes; it has been deprecated by the next subsection. Sebastian 06:33, January 17, 2007
Or so I thought, until the teal bordered part was added. — Sebastian 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the fundamental differences between Hinduism and Islam is the contradicting principle and the extent of conversion. It deserves a mention in the article. Freedom skies| talk  04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why a contrast needs to be drawn especially since it mostly polemical and the sources are likely to be POV charged on either side and currently involves literary gymnastics with the english and citations to get across. It would be better to simply talk about each periods effects and the driving factors in a factual manner and leave it to the readers. This was suggested by the Neutrality project reviewers as we all a method of resolving this issue. Does it sound acceptable?--Tigeroo 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Polemical and the sources" included the Dalit published articles as well, the contrast need not be drawn in a one-sentence manner; it can be the first line introducing the non-conversion priciples of Hinduism and the following line mentioning the forced conversions. Freedom skies| talk  05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True polemical can include Dalit published articles. Note that is why I used the Merriam Webster Encyclopedia. I don't even use Ambedkar, because while he is slightly notable he is not really an academic authority. If we have specific issues with the POV of some sources we can take it up and discuss and find other non-biased sources. Please be specific so we can talk particulars, rather than just moving in and doing changes without explaining or talking about it so that another solution can be found. I still don't see what non-conversion principle of hinduism has to do with the decline of buddhism, the general argument made by academics is that Hinduism evolved from syncretism and comunication with Buddhism, Jainism, Brahmanism under the Bhakti movement influences and discoures with later saivite and vaishnavite under political patronage. The decline was due to assimilationary convergent pressures. This is already a clearly dissimilar change than the conversions and much more limited syncretic interactions that occured under Islam and their political leadership. Also it's been argued that Buddhism had already declined, most vanished in south india and been pressured into small vihara's etc before the muslims came so that their sacking quickly dissipated the last of the footholds. Simply recounting the actions of the historical progress "show" the reader making it unnecssary to "tell" the reader through editorializing with OR. See the Neutrality Projects comments to the same as well.--Tigeroo 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If useful can we call for more third party comments on this issue from the Neutrality project to resolve this?--Tigeroo 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If the contrast exists then we don't need to editorialize or bring in unconnected snippets from sources that are not talking about our topic. It will stand out and be clearly visible to the reader. I guess I don't need to reiterate to you to keep personal opinions out?--Tigeroo 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #9: Temples @ Islam 

message: The gray bordered subsection is only kept for historical purposes; it has been deprecated by the next subsection. Sebastian 06:33, January 17, 2007
Or so I thought, until the teal bordered part was added. — Sebastian 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #9: Temples @ Islam - misunderstood 

message: This is the second attempt for the above subsection. 
diffs	proposed solution                                                                                                                       	explanation
     	Delete the sentence "Hinduism does not allow conversion of non believers to the faith; it then tolerates the existence of other beliefs"	It isn't much better for an introduction than the sentence we just deleted.
This remains from the deletion above. It seems Ti wants it to be deleted, and I think he's right, per what I wrote in ##4: Evangelization @ Sungas. — Sebastian 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the fundamental differences between Hinduism and Islam is the contradicting principle and the extent of conversion. It deserves a mention in the article. Freedom skies| talk  04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why a contrast needs to be drawn especially since it mostly polemical and the sources are likely to be POV charged on either side and currently involves literary gymnastics with the english and citations to get across. It would be better to simply talk about each periods effects and the driving factors in a factual manner and leave it to the readers. This was suggested by the Neutrality project reviewers as we all a method of resolving this issue. Does it sound acceptable?--Tigeroo 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Polemical and the sources" included the Dalit published articles as well, the contrast need not be drawn in a one-sentence manner; it can be the first line introducing the non-conversion priciples of Hinduism and the following line mentioning the forced conversions. Freedom skies| talk  05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True polemical can include Dalit published articles. Note that is why I used the Merriam Webster Encyclopedia. I don't even use Ambedkar, because while he is slightly notable he is not really an academic authority. If we have specific issues with the POV of some sources we can take it up and discuss and find other non-biased sources. Please be specific so we can talk particulars, rather than just moving in and doing changes without explaining or talking about it so that another solution can be found. I still don't see what non-conversion principle of hinduism has to do with the decline of buddhism, the general argument made by academics is that Hinduism evolved from syncretism and comunication with Buddhism, Jainism, Brahmanism under the Bhakti movement influences and discoures with later saivite and vaishnavite under political patronage. The decline was due to assimilationary convergent pressures. This is already a clearly dissimilar change than the conversions and much more limited syncretic interactions that occured under Islam and their political leadership. Also it's been argued that Buddhism had already declined, most vanished in south india and been pressured into small vihara's etc before the muslims came so that their sacking quickly dissipated the last of the footholds. Simply recounting the actions of the historical progress "show" the reader making it unnecssary to "tell" the reader through editorializing with OR. See the Neutrality Projects comments to the same as well.--Tigeroo 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If useful can we call for more third party comments on this issue from the Neutrality project to resolve this?--Tigeroo 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If the contrast exists then we don't need to editorialize or bring in unconnected snippets from sources that are not talking about our topic. It will stand out and be clearly visible to the reader. I guess I don't need to reiterate to you to keep personal opinions out?--Tigeroo 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #9: Hinduism @ Islam 

message: diffs	proposed solution	explanation
     	==Buddhism in Southern India==
In the south of India while there was no overt persecution of Buddhists at least two Pallava rulers Simhavarma and Trilochana are known to have destroyed Buddhist stupas and have had Hindu temples built over them. Furthermore a vigorous Hindu revival of Vaishnavite Hinduism in the region led to a sharp decline of Buddhism.}	There is a source, and a historical basis for this section. Refer to the history of the Kalabhras. There are also accounts from Chinese scholar who travelled India cataloging Buddhism as well as the issues with the Vaishnavite concepts that called Buddha as deceiver god who led people astray that pressured Buddhism under the Chalukyas etc.. The history of the decline of Buddhism in South India does not follow the story of the north. It has entirely different actors and a different time scale that this article misses. - Tigeroo
Is this still an issue? — Sebastian 05:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it might amount to. I'll just take a few hours to come back with a reference and present my POV on this and other issues in detail. Freedom skies| talk  04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I request additional sources for verification of this information. The information is speculative and vague in nature and in it's current form not eligible to encyclopedic entry. Freedom skies| talk  19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind. Since this is wikipedia, we do not necessarily delete material that does seem to meet the criteria. Mark it stub, or one that needs expansion or needs further information any of the myriad section tags available. Leave it up for a bit to see if it is expanded and improved. Right now is one link and reason to that the speculation is based on something. It doesn't warrant summary deletion is all.--Tigeroo 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Remove the speculated piece of vauge "information" unless multiple WP:RS sources cannot verify them. Freedom skies| talk  11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Stub it, tag it as appropriate temporarily. I will look into expanding the section with much more WP:RS and if I cannot I will remove it. Sounds fair? To me atm it sounds like it has a basis, but being occupied with the debates over the rest of the page I had never had to time to come back and expand it.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  #10: Decline @ South 

message: These issues have been brought up a month after we completed the issue list. There is no agreement yet if we want to allow including new issues that late. I addressed this problem in a mail on Jan 28 (copied here, but have not received an answer yet. I am therefore inserting this headline to separate them from the agreed issues. — Sebastian 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, if you think the article is unbalanced please cite from WP:RS sources and add. Deleting material and editorializing with OR, marginal or off topic information does not improve the article. As for Xuangxang and Islam, it may be because he barely mentioned them?? It may also be because he returned when the Muslims were still in Persia so they just weren't there when he visited????? You still have to identify the offending the dalit publication. I will happily replace it for a more suitable source.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please qualify simply everything. I have been very specific and given you reasons. See this is as a challenge to improve the items. Generally, speaking if they relevant, on topic and reflect the sources than ok. A good example is the BBC source you used, and I have listed the problems to help you address my concern so that we actually have a good article with strong content. When I went to the BBC source there I did not find what you used it to refer to, instead I found something totally opposite, the evangelization had nothing to do with the Sunga period etc. When they are strong and factual I have let them stand. As for Xuanxang, I admit nothing because I know nothing of him mentioning muslims at all. When Xuanxang completed his travels and returned via todays modern day Afghanistan, Muslims had just started engaging the Persians so I would actually be very surprised to hear anything to that end. I have told you that this article is far from finished and there is a lot that can be added. Feel free to do so, but please do it well. See it as a challenge, positive robust editing can only help the article get better.--Tigeroo 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the statement that Tigeroo was specific; trying to convince Freedom skies to be specific has been very frustrating for me. — Sebastian 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The #1: Dalits @ intro section details Tigeroo removing Islam completely from the revival section. Removal of Islam's influence has also been given in #6: Decline @ Qasim discussion. I notified you using all channels at my disposal, including the discussion pages here. Freedom skies| talk  11:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's only here and not in the right section because somewhere along in the edit wars the chronological sequence layout got reverted back to this. Plus the rest of the paragraph is saying why Buddhism declined by assimilation into a new Hinduism.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, The intro needs to be changed and the information assimilated. The time period in question is already covered. "It's only here and not in the right section because somewhere along in the edit wars the chronological sequence layout got reverted back to this." is not fair rationale. Freedom skies| talk  19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, its not a fair rationale, but unfortunately it is the only reason it exists in this state and has failed to be successfully moved not elsewhere. If we can agree to a new layout and arrangement we can move it as appropriate in the context of the article.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New issues by Freedom Skies 

message: Tigeroo has seen to Islam's mention being removed from both the revival and the Muhammad bin Quasim sections. Such agendas are certainly unwelcome as they come with deletion of sourced text. In addition the section "Xuanzang's Report" does not have any mention Islam whatsoever. Tigeroo, convieniently omittimg Islam while mentioning Hinduism from sources like Dalit publications is surprising. Freedom skies| talk  13:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, if you think the article is unbalanced please cite from WP:RS sources and add. Deleting material and editorializing with OR, marginal or off topic information does not improve the article. As for Xuangxang and Islam, it may be because he barely mentioned them?? It may also be because he returned when the Muslims were still in Persia so they just weren't there when he visited????? You still have to identify the offending the dalit publication. I will happily replace it for a more suitable source.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please qualify simply everything. I have been very specific and given you reasons. See this is as a challenge to improve the items. Generally, speaking if they relevant, on topic and reflect the sources than ok. A good example is the BBC source you used, and I have listed the problems to help you address my concern so that we actually have a good article with strong content. When I went to the BBC source there I did not find what you used it to refer to, instead I found something totally opposite, the evangelization had nothing to do with the Sunga period etc. When they are strong and factual I have let them stand. As for Xuanxang, I admit nothing because I know nothing of him mentioning muslims at all. When Xuanxang completed his travels and returned via todays modern day Afghanistan, Muslims had just started engaging the Persians so I would actually be very surprised to hear anything to that end. I have told you that this article is far from finished and there is a lot that can be added. Feel free to do so, but please do it well. See it as a challenge, positive robust editing can only help the article get better.--Tigeroo 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the statement that Tigeroo was specific; trying to convince Freedom skies to be specific has been very frustrating for me. — Sebastian 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The #1: Dalits @ intro section details Tigeroo removing Islam completely from the revival section. Removal of Islam's influence has also been given in #6: Decline @ Qasim discussion. I notified you using all channels at my disposal, including the discussion pages here. Freedom skies| talk  11:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Islam

message: The intro has topics already covered in detail in other sections. The intro has one line about the decline and the rest belongs in Buddhism's influence on Hinduism and not in the decline section. Remove the lines and shift them to their respective periods. Freedom skies| talk  13:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only here and not in the right section because somewhere along in the edit wars the chronological sequence layout got reverted back to this. Plus the rest of the paragraph is saying why Buddhism declined by assimilation into a new Hinduism.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, The intro needs to be changed and the information assimilated. The time period in question is already covered. "It's only here and not in the right section because somewhere along in the edit wars the chronological sequence layout got reverted back to this." is not fair rationale. Freedom skies| talk  19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, its not a fair rationale, but unfortunately it is the only reason it exists in this state and has failed to be successfully moved not elsewhere. If we can agree to a new layout and arrangement we can move it as appropriate in the context of the article.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro to Ideological and financial causes

message: I don't like the edit wars on both articles. While it is hard to stop third persons, as in the edit war that took place yesterday, it is clearly disruptive if involved parties keep editing while we're trying to mediate. In particular, conducting an edit war about what is being discussed in inacceptable. I am disappointed with both parties:
* I asked  just yesterday to explain his reason for the desired change, and instead of answering my question, he starts this war. I therefore revert to the old version.
*  just put me off because he said he didn't have enough time for the mediation - but then he has time for that!
If I don't see a significant change in attitude by both parties I will have to question the willingness of both parties to seek mediation. One other well-intended person who tried to help with this situation already bowed out. How many good willing people are you planning to wear out for you POV war? This has to stop right now! — Sebastian 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I must have misunderstood the question. I thought you just wanted me to edit the language and explanations in my goals and reasons, which I tried, let me know if it was not enough. Nina I think you can follow in the talk pages of the page, to avoid revisting past tensions I won't comment on it and just look at a more restrained behavoir in the days ahead.--Tigeroo 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I was waiting for was a reply to User talk:Tigeroo#Goals, but let's discuss that there. Is the second sentence addressed to Nina? don't quite understand it, but I'll just take it as an apology since that's how you summarized it. Cheers! — Sebastian 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a new issue? Seems the expansion of the last section has also run into problems. Can we take it up as well?--Tigeroo 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I don't understand you. Please be specific, and use links where appropriate, e.g. to diffs. — Sebastian 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars jeopardize this case 

message: By "acute changes", I mean changes that have been made after I activated the mediation and that do not reflect the consensus reached at the time. It has been brought to my attention that at least one party did such acute changes.  
I take responsibility for that, because I did not communicate clearly that I would like both parties to refrain from acute changes while the mediation is going on. The reason why I'm asking for this is that I believe it is crucial for a good solution that both parties build up trust, and I am afraid that acute changes undermine just that trust. There is no hurry; please wait till we reach a solution together!
To allow me to correct my mistake, please do three steps: 
# List diffs of acute changes here
# make sure that all involved issues are listed in te Goal oriented issues table 
# add "agree", "disagree - will explain" or "disagre - see discussion" (meaning the discussion of the issue on the discussion page) in the solutions column. 
Once you're done, I will go through the diffs and revert all acute changes that are not sufficiently explained. 
— Sebastian 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acute changes 

message: My comments on the new procedure will come, but first ... 
: Sorry about interrupting you. I'm moving the discussion about your claim that "Tigeroo has reverted every single edit I have made" into its own section. Utcursch can work out with you if that really needs to be solved first. Please reserve this section for discussing my request to provide detailed and well referenced edit summaries. — Sebastian 07:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom skies' reply

message: For the new procedure:
* (Tigeroo agreed above)
*I agree Freedom skies| talk  09:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both! So, just go ahead and implement your agreed changes! — Sebastian 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: ===A couple of days===
I'll be back in a couple of days to present my side and arguments. This is going to be exhausting and will neeed careful work, for which I need to just wrap up a couple of projects before I can devote time here. Once through, I'll strive to make every possible effort to work on this project. Thank You. Freedom skies| talk  04:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to start tommorow. I'll have my break from work in real life to engage myself thoroughly (and thorough involvement is needed) then. Freedom skies| talk  18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, thanks! Please feel free to propose different solutions in the Goal oriented issues table, or add new issues, if you like. There's no rush from my side, and Tigeroo doesn't seem to be in a hurry, either. Don't be afraid about the amount of involvement; we can just tackle the issues one by one, if both of you are fine with that. — Sebastian 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a third party mediation and comments have been most useful. Could I request your continued involvement until it has been wrapped up. I think we are moving slow enough that this will not take up excessive time from your end.--Tigeroo 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks for your encouragement! I will watch this page a bit less closely, though. From now on, if you would like to draw my attention to this page, please drop me a short note by user talk or email. Thanks! — Sebastian 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What happened to the new mediator??? Haven't seem him and kind of fell off following the page waiting.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress and status

message: I'll be back in a couple of days to present my side and arguments. This is going to be exhausting and will neeed careful work, for which I need to just wrap up a couple of projects before I can devote time here. Once through, I'll strive to make every possible effort to work on this project. Thank You. Freedom skies| talk  04:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to start tommorow. I'll have my break from work in real life to engage myself thoroughly (and thorough involvement is needed) then. Freedom skies| talk  18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, thanks! Please feel free to propose different solutions in the Goal oriented issues table, or add new issues, if you like. There's no rush from my side, and Tigeroo doesn't seem to be in a hurry, either. Don't be afraid about the amount of involvement; we can just tackle the issues one by one, if both of you are fine with that. — Sebastian 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of days

message: I just updated the status column of the issues table, and it seems like we're half done. For several reasons, I would like to become less involved in this. How do you guys feel about the progress? It seems to me that you are doing fairly well without me breathing down your necks. — Sebastian 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a third party mediation and comments have been most useful. Could I request your continued involvement until it has been wrapped up. I think we are moving slow enough that this will not take up excessive time from your end.--Tigeroo 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks for your encouragement! I will watch this page a bit less closely, though. From now on, if you would like to draw my attention to this page, please drop me a short note by user talk or email. Thanks! — Sebastian 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Half done?

message: We're obviously not half done, as I thought above, since two of the resolved items have been reopened since, two more have been brought up, and none has been resolved. This is growing over my head, at a time where much of my attention is needed elsewhere. I therefore asked User:Utcursch if he would be willing to take over from me or share this case with me, and he thankfully agreed with both options. Would you both accept him? I did not ask what style of mediation he prefers; he may be less formal than what I tried. I would be fine if he doesn't go along with my proposal to describe edits in detail. — Sebastian 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we invite another mediator?

message: It looks like there has been no movement in over a month. Can we close this case? — Sebastian 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to the new mediator??? Haven't seem him and kind of fell off following the page waiting.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we close this case? 

message: Tigeroo added Buddhism in Southern India heading with two = symbols in the code instead of the required 3. Now it appears as though Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazni, Palas, Muhammad of Ghor, The Mongols and Timur are covered under "Buddhism in Southern India." Kindly replace the heading "==Buddhism in Southern India==" by "===Buddhism in Southern India===" till the section is argued out. Freedom skies| talk  20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like an honest mistake to me; I just change it. — Sebastian 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: Change                                                                                                                                            	Changed in edit (diff)	Reason given in issue #
Mentioned Islam's role in the decline in relation with Maha Bodhi, mentioned Ambedekar in relation with Islam, and mentioned Dalai Lama in detail.	                      	#1: Dalits @ intro
::I expanded the section with new quotes for more accuracy, and re-integrated the sourced information removed. Also edited the new quote about Islam to more accurately reflect what the source more fully says about the subject. I am sure there are other sources that can better illustrate the POV you want, but this source doesn't quite do that. Also the last part of the Dalai Lama should be moved more to the Dalai Lama section or the Buddhism and Hinduism section.
Change                                                                                               	Changed in edit (diff)	Reason given in issue #
Mentioned Quasim's contributions to the overall decline and provided additional instances and sources	                      	#6: Decline @ Qasim
::Reverted to last version by our mediator. Didn't see any new information or sources except the same old primary source and the other ones without a page number or give sufficient detail and that just duplicate information already mentioned from a more authoratative and exhaustive one.--Tigeroo 12:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes