Talk:Buddhism/Archive 12

message: the discussion page uses 218 KB, it should be archived.
— Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  /Archive 18 created. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive of discussions 

message: I reverted this edit. Although it seems not totally unreasonable to insert some qualification of who Siddharta Gautama was, i'm not sure if this really belongs here. Also qualifying him as "Indian" bears some problems (discussed that a couple of times before). Also i looked at the contributions of this IP: the editor seems to be primarily focused on inserting the word "india" into various articles and some of his other edits create the impression that he's generally editing from an indian nationalistic WP:POV. Can somebody else maybe take a look at his contributions as well? Andi 3ö (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit to lead by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.170.193.28 198.170.193.28] 

message: Buddist live lifes of sacrfice. Always looking for ways to give in the God. They have lots of religious holidays.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.92.107 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism's Daily Lives 

message: :The claim I have been making all along is that some scholars reject the idea of a common core of Buddhism. The truth of this claim is easily verified from the citations at User:Peter jackson#Common core. I've never said there are no scholars who say there is a common core. Peter jackson (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked you to define what you mean by a common core.  You have not been able to do this.  I've pointed out that the term, "common core" is used by theorists to discuss the psychology of religion.  You say you weren't using it in this way, so how were you using it?  If you can't answer a single question about your claims, then we can't use them.  I've recently removed the statement, "However, Buddhist schools disagree over the exact nature of the path and on the importance and canonicity of various teachings and scriptures" from the lead section because it did not appear to summarize the topic per WP:LEAD. (it was recently reverted and added back by User:Andi 3ö)  Can you show me where it does? Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Common core

message: :I'm doing this a bit at a time for convenience.
"In response to this, Peter writes above, "The organization that produced this isn't mentioned in (four examples of encyclopedias) as far as I can tell. It's obviously a small & unimportant organization."  What is so interesting about Peter's response is what he omits from his list of encyclopedias.  The organization is in fact, mentioned in the entry for Buddhism in the Encyclopædia Britannica online"
:I was citing specialist encyclopaedias. If this organization represented all Buddhists, as you seem to imply (I'm not sure you've actually stated it eplicitly), why isn't it mentioned. As I asked before, how many encyclopaedias & dictionaries of Christianity can you find that don't mention the World Council of Churches? Yet that's only a minority of Christians. The idea that the WBSC represents all Buddhists is totally implausible in the face of this argumentum e silentio. You might also look at WP's own article on it, which lists the countries in which it has members. (This used to be on their website too.) No mention of China. (Nor in the list of committee members on the website.) That's 100,000,000 or so Buddhists unrepresented for a start. Peter jackson (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you are reduced to straw man arguments and basically arguing with yourself.  This is what I have come to expect from you.  I've asked you somewhere on the order of a dozen different questions and you haven't been able to answer one.  Instead, you keep going off on a tangent about something or another. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you'd care to list your dozen questions & I'll give you the diffs for where I answered them. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopaedias &c

message: "Now, note the role given to Pure Land in the context of Mahayana: "The Mahayana tradition encompasses a great many different schools, including the Madhyamika; the Yogacara or Vijnanavada (Vijnaptamatrata); the Avatamsaka school, which recognized the special importance of the Avatamsaka Sutra; a number of different schools that recognized the special authority of the Saddharmapundarika (Lotus Sutra); various Pure Land devotional schools; and several Dhyana (“Meditation”) schools." 
:I don't understand what point you're making here. The passage lists a numbe of Mahayana schools. So what? Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is crystal-clear.  Even Encyclopædia Britannica does not give as much weight to Pure Land as you do, and they devote a very tiny percentage of their entire article on Buddhism to it and its practices.  I also found their overall approach to the topic focused on the commonalities of beliefs and practices, rather than their differences.  And the essential teachings of the Buddha are emphasized throughout; All of the things you are fighting against. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remarks raise an interesting question that I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Systemic bias of reliable sources. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pure Land

message: "For example, you cite a source that claims that "Buddhism is the oldest of the great world religions", which of course, isn't true." 
:You've taken 1/2 a quotation out of context. Here's the full quotation as I posted it on my user page:
"Buddhism is the oldest of the great 'world religions'. Like both the others – Christianity and Islam – it not only addresses itself to all mankind but has found adherents in almost all parts of the world." 
:Plainly it is the oldest of the 3. The author is using the term "world religion" in an unusual sense, for what Sopher calls "universalizing religions", I would call "universal religions" & other people call "missionary religions" or proselytizing religions". Peter jackson (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it possibly helpful to cite ambiguous information that makes a statement that is clearly false? Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement as written is quite true: Buddhism is older than Christianity and Islam. You aren't doing any favors for your case by pursuing this line of argument.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The statement as it is written is quite false: "Buddhism is the oldest of the great 'world religions'." Please note the full stop.  And the added ambiguity of placing such a statement in terms of only Christianity and Islam in the next sentence only makes it useless.  I prefer unambiguous statements that are clear in every context they are used.  And, I'm not here to do myself any favors.  I find much of what Peter writes ambiguous and unclear, which was my point. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: World Religion

message: "You also cite a source that says "there have been about 10,000,000 Buddhist martyrs, and about 1,811,000 Christians have been martyred by (Mahayana) Buddhists."  When asked what this means and for details on the subject, you throw your hands up in the air.  So there are just two instances of bad sources for disputed statements you've added to your user page."
:It's not my job to explain reliable sources. If you don't like them you can complain to the publisher. 
:"disputed" by whom? You haven't yet cited a reliable source that disagrees (or even an unreliable one). Peter jackson (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how we use sources, Peter.  If you make a claim using a source, then you need to be able to back it up.  We don't just cite content merely because it exists.  You persist in citing the World Christian Encyclopedia: a Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World in a discussion on Buddhism.  Do you think that is appropriate?  And when I ask you to explain the information, you admit that you are unable to do so.  So, do you understand Peter, than the fact that a source simply exists does not in any way justify its inclusion? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago." Peter jackson (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

text: That simply is not how it works, Peter.  All reliable sources must meet standard inclusion criteria, including those of authoritativeness, accuracy, and relevance.  That you either don't know this or refuse to acknowledge this is extremely troubling. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: We're currently at 142,296 bytes, and the article is not only unmanageable, but unreadable.  Should the article start with  "Life of the Buddha" or some other topic?  The prose can be tightened up a bit; I see a lot of needless words. Is the current date of birth correct?  I read in another source that it had been adjusted by several centuries, so it should probably read as a range rather than as an exact date. Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't start by trimming material out.  The way to deal with oversize is to take sections or groups of related sections and move them into a new sub-article. Write a new lede for the sub-article that introduces and summarises its content and, for the time being, copy and paste that summary back into the main, with a link like  where the material went from. Works a treat. Now, what are the best new sub-article names? I suggest the current sections 4, 5 and 6 are candidates: History of Buddhism, Schools and traditions of Buddhism and Buddhist texts maybe? --Nigelj (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I see two of these are not red links at the moment, so the issue will involve merging the material from here with what is already there. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The date is probably wrong. Most scholars now put his death around 400 BC. Peter jackson (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we get some recent sources on this please?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a more or less established (Gethin, Sayings of the Buddha, Oxford World Classics, 2008, page xv), though not final (Keown & Prebish, eds, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Routledge, 2007, page 107), consensus for a death date around 400 BC. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life of the Buddha 

message: The last date in archive 17 is 7 June 2008. The first date in archive 18 is 15 May 2009. There seems to be a massive gap. Peter jackson (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see what you mean.  I'm looking into where the rest went now. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, found it and a bunch of other stuff.  Looks like whoever was archiving the page before now, was using an unconventional way to do it.  It's going to take a while to fix everything, but I'm on it.  You can view a list of all subpages, here.  Since we now have the indexing system we no longer need the old pages so I'm going to go ahead and merge them. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here was the problem. Esteban G. Bodigami Vincenzi wanted to use the permalink method instead of archiving.  I'm fixing it now. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no longer any time gaps, but there's still material missing. maybe it got refactored into subpages & then some of the links got lost somewhere along the line. Peter jackson (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: I would like to discuss changing the lead image to reflect its adherents, such as a monk, Sangha, or something people-oriented. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: In any wikipedia article, basic info should be in the first few parapgrahs. And nowhere in the beggining does it say that Buddhism comes from India or was founded in Ancient India or rose from the Indian sub-continent. Nothing. I have mentineod this before, and sometimes someone puts something like that, and other times its not thier. I mean do some of you people have something against India then? 
What is going on here. I mean when you go to the Buddha's page it has the info about India then I think. So why not here in the beggining of the article then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct, and every good source on the subject mentions that Buddhism originated in India or spread out from there to the rest of the world.  Please go ahead and add it.  I have no idea why anyone would remove it, so you better believe I will be going through the edit history to see who did this. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: It was removed by  on September 30, 2009. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Added some back in, per your suggestion. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It's important precisely for the reasons you mention, but I feel you've added too much detail to the lead with the new edits.  Most tertiary sources mention the origin of Buddism in India at a certain time, and I see no reason why we shouldn't either. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes although their was no country named  India their was still a land of a certain people. Maybe Bharat. Maybe Land of the Aryans. Maybe Hindustand later. But you have to call it something becuase it is a land. So India makes sense. Or you can say Ancient India? Or you can say the Indian subcontinent.....and by the way....if you want to go by your logic, that their was no India then, do you know how impratical that is? Their was no Europe name back then. Their was no Africa name back then. Their was no Austrailia name back then. (if their was im not sure) but the point is lots of names today don't have name's that were their back then. But you still know that some places have names that are commonly understood to represent a total history. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the current version meets your expectations.  Please review it. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is their no mention of India in the first few parapgraphs? 

message: The use of numbered lists throughout this article is excessive and unprecedented.  I am not aware of any GA or FA on religion or philosophy that uses this format and this style is not encyclopedic.  I suggest that the vast majority of such lists are converted to prose, with the use of prose in introductory paragraphs instead of embedded lists.  It's time to bring this article inline with standard formatting and layout conventions. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to a point, but I will suggest (and correct me if I'm wrong) that perhaps Buddhism is somewhat unique in the prominence of ordered lists in many of its conceptual basics (four noble truths, eightfold path, three jewels, five/eight/ten precepts, twelve nidanas, etc.). Prose may detract from the significance of their ordering or increase wordiness and ease of navigation – just something to consider. That said, some of these lists could definitely be cast in a prose style (in particular, the introduction of "31 planes of existence" – followed by a numbered list of only six items – and the part about the Middle Way). /ninly (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just spent the last two days pouring through secondary and tertiary sources on the subject, and Wikipedia is the only place that uses this format.  My main concern is not the unique style, but readability.  It looks good as an outline, but not as an encyclopedia article.  Most of these numbered lists have their own articles, and readers can be directed there for more information. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbered lists 

message: I have reverted edits to the intro secton for the following reasons. This is an encyclopedia, and we need to be respectful to people who wish to find out about Buddhism.  It's not really a place to grandstand what we know, or try to force into every narrative our personal viewpoints. It needs to be readable. This is the foundation of consideration to visitors who have come here to find answers to their questions.
To start listing obscure modern scets in the second paragraph of a single article on Buddhism not only holds the reader back from getting the broad sweep of the subject, but it also fails to use hyperlinks for their purpose of allowing people to click to something they want to know more about, and invites retainers for every last one of probably tens of thousands of Buddhist organisations from the last 2,500 years to want that in the second paragraph.
Please, be kind to readers.  Let them get on with the story.  If you really want to namecheck Eskimo Buddhism, or the NKT, please put it further down, as they don't quite rate alongside the Theravada and the Mahayana.Bluehotel (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a mixture. Some of those are really obscure. Others are comparatively major. Soka Gakkai, which Wikipedia rightly or wrongly calls NDB, has around 15 million followers. The Vipassana movement probably has even more, but claims to be simply Theravada. Peter jackson (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So-called "Eskimo Buddhism" now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskimo Buddhism Bluehotel (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and purpose of this page 

message: In view of our speculation above about how many people might be reading our discussions without taking part, I thought it might be interesting to look up how many people have the article on their watchlists. If I've used the system right, the answer is 1056. That presumably includes some who've left Wikipedia without blanking their watchlists, but it does seem rather a lot. Peter jackson (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a lot? Frm what I've read on this subject, it sounds like the going average for high profile pages.  And don't think for a minute that anyone is reading this.  Having a page on your watchlist and following the discussion is altogether two different things. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, but it's interesting anyway. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  And don't think for a minute that anyone is reading this.  I am. I doubt I am alone. 20040302 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  Whatever you do, don't think of the color red! :-) Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchers 

message: Discussion page is used to help improve the article.  Please focus on that task.  Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, but in practice we tend to allow ourselves a bit of leeway. All things are interconnected, anyway. Peter jackson (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But the interconnection should not overwhelm our goal here.  Ajahn Brahm actually addresses this problem. We need to focus on improving the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your reference to AB. Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder