Talk:Buddhism/Archive 7

message: there was a time when they would have sent the army in for less than that  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.161.253 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chinese Mahayana Buddhist monk lighting incense in a Beijing temple." 

message: This is not a synonym for Pure Land, as stated in the version I just corrected, but a particular variety. Peter jackson (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shin 

message: It would appear that Buddha came from a Hindu society. And saw injustice in his society, and therefore sought the ultimate truth. Many of the shared terms, the locality and the time period of the two belief systems would suggest Buddhism was a kind of reformation of Hinduism, as it was practiceded in Buddha's culture. It then became its own belief system separate from Hinduism, just as Christianity was once a sect of Judaism, and became its own religion and quasi-independant belief system. And, should this possible relation and religious designation about the area in which he grew up be mentioned.76.104.22.182 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was Buddha's original religeous background? 

message: I added a new Buddhism#Criticism section, this time mostly sources. I will continue to look for more sources and add more criticism to it. And I finally learned how to cite :D! Saimdusan 08:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess someone deleted it because it's not there anymoreDumaka (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a general WP policy of including criticism, tho' I'm not sure it applies to things like this. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism#Criticism

message: The template at the top of this page says this is in multiple projecs, & the show gives 2: Buddhism & atheism. No mention of religion, tho' there is such a project. This seems pretty perverse, since Buddhism is not atheist. The vast majority of it is polytheist, Mahayana, or some forms, might well be considered pantheist, modern Indonesian Buddhism certainly is, & only some modern, Westernized Buddhism, & some theories of the Buddha's original teaching, are atheist. Peter jackson (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProjects 

message: I've deleted the link to the article on estimates of numbers of Buddhists, as that seems to consist largely of wildly inflated estimates put together by Chinese Buddhist propagandists who can't speak English properly. Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that article is a travesty (although please be careful to be  civil about it).  I spent a fair bit of effort on it months ago and gave up; now I just check it occasionally to make sure it's still tagged "disputed".  I do think that the better solution is to improve that article, with references, which will bring it more in line with typical estimates.  (One problem is that the article as it stands requires a number of calculations for totals and subtotals when any single number is changed; it desperately needs to be simplified.)  Unless we are prepared to spend real time cleaning it up, however, I'd support your removal of the link here.  (Wow, that was a long-winded agreement.)  bikeable (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind also that the article contains a table of numbers of Buddhists in aparently every country in the world. Just imagine the amount of work involved in tracking down reliable sources for all of them. On the other hand, there are some genuine issues here, which I'm just about to deal with here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Hello,
I just happened to notice the new introduction the the article, and I am very pleased with it. Well done! 
There is one sentence which needs a source still, the sentence that says that buddhism falls outside of the definition of religion according to some. Please if someone could add this it will be near perfect!
Greetings, Sacca 10:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no agreement among historians as to what the Buddha taught. I'm not sure what claim you're saying is not true. Peter jackson (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  congratulations 

message: From WP:NPOV:
"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.
All Wikipedia articles ... must be written from a neutral point of view ... representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views ... This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles ..."
"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."
:* "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
:* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
:* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
This last quote is paraphrased from Mr Wales himself.
So I think the procedure we should be following in cases of difference of opinion is something like this.
* First give the view(s) given in the "commonly accepted reference texts". In principle give them the preponderance of space. Do not, however, assert that they are the majority without an explicit statement in a reliable source. (This is stated in WP:Reliable_sources.) Instead, ascribe them to the reference text(s).
* Then give any other views espoused by "prominent" scholars.
* This I can't find in the guidelines, but it seems logical to me. On questions of Buddhist teaching & its interpretation, as distinct from history, we are presumably trying to report what Buddhists believe. By analogy, this should cover all "significant" views within Buddhism. Therefore, by analogy again, we should add any other views of prominent Buddhists, that is, those not already covered by scholars. The reliable sources guidelines say secondary sources should be preferred to primary, ie scholars to Buddhists.
I'm going to make a start with the introduction to the 4NT section. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I want to reach Enlightenment, but I don't want to be 'stuck' in a religion. Can some body help me? --Jay Lights! Camera! Action! 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlightenment 

message: My ignorance will show here, but one point I haven't seen addressed, in these Wikipedia articles or elsewhere, is the Buddhist view of the natural world, especially in the modern environmentalist sense of nature as an entity that is beautiful, bountiful, and well-regulated by itself.  For example, to an outsider the practice of Patikulamanasikara seems mysterious; how can contemplation of the healthy parts of one's body be viewed primarily as revulsion, when they are so well-formed that half the people in America can't believe they weren't directly crafted by the hand of God?  Water, air, and fire are among the Kammaṭṭhāna, but are they viewed as static essences or as living phenomena that manifest the song of the natural world?  One of the types of suffering is the separation from pleasant things; is nature one of these pleasant things?  Fundamentally, when one considers the essence of nature (not a mountain or a species, but the materially manifested ability of planets to create beautiful geology or elegant species), is this seen as impermanent?  Or is it some form of dharma or Buddha-nature that is beyond time?  I think an article Buddhism and nature could be very interesting. Wnt (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could well be, but there are a lot of different points of view to cover, & the article would risk serious bias. Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was too lazy to read all your message I would like to say the buddhist has a negitive view about everything, with all the suffering. Was the buddha a virgin? --JayTur1  (Contribs) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism and nature

message: I am going around and checking the faiths that do not have "criticism" articles. Criticism of Buddhism redirects to Criticism of Religion. Any thoughts? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was quite a bit of discussion on this on Talk:Criticism of Religion recently- the consensus was that there was material that should be covered, but as yet I don't think anyone has acted on it.  --Clay Collier (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism article 

message: I've deleted the following material as it looks biased:
The Sangha, at the same time, became increasingly fragmented both in terms of Abhidharma and Vinaya practice. The Mahayana movement, on the other hand, was ecumenical, reflecting a wide range of influence from various sects.
If anyone can find a reliable source it can be restored Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: Maybe this article should be protected as a big part of the edits of the last days seems to be vandalism committed by anonymous users. --Liebeskind (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: obviously vandalism	reverts caused by that	other edits	total
2008-01-30	8                  	7                     	0          	15
2008-01-31	0                  	0                     	6          	6
2008-02-01	1                  	1                     	1          	3
2008-02-02	0                  	0                     	7          	7
2008-02-03	1                  	1                     	3          	5
2008-02-04	4                  	4                     	6          	14
2008-02-05	5                  	6                     	10         	21
2008-02-06	6                  	5                     	2          	13
2008-02-07	10                 	7                     	2          	19
2008-02-08	3                  	3                     	1          	7
          	obviously vandalism	reverts caused by that	other edits	total
--Liebeskind (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistic of Edits 

message: I am looking for editors to come to my sandbox at User:Mind meal/Sandbox26 to collaborate on creating a first-class article on Zen Buddhism in the United States. Interested parties can contact me on my talk page. I would like to see a group of research-oriented editors come aboard. I think it may work best if various editors focus on one particular dimension of Zen in America (always backed by references) and we can add various sections, come up with section titles, and eventually bring the article to "completion." While this is a labor of love for me, I fear it will take eons to get the article right alone. With the help of other editors, however, we can make progress much faster. Please contact me before starting to edit my sandbox. I want to know the members I am working with before doing so. Thank you. (Mind meal (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zen Buddhism in the United States

message: Please add the following external link: 
Buddhist Society of Western Australia - http://www.bswa.org/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi04 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? How many states have Buddhist societies? Do you expect us to link them all from this article? Peter jackson (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: A lot of sources falsely say that Buddha was born in Northern India...he was actually born in Lumbini, Southern Nepal. The wikipedia page refers to UNESCO site as its source of information about the birth place of Buddha, but if you check the UNESCO site, it clearly says that his birthplace is Lumbini, Nepal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.5.169 (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perfectly true that what has been believed since at least the 3rd century BC to be the Buddha's birthplace is now in Nepal. It has been since 1860, when Britain transferred it as a reward for Nepal's support against the Indian mutiny. Nepal wasn't even invented in the Buddha's time. It is customary to use geographical terms as they apply to the time referred to. We don't usually talk about Pakistan before 1947, for example. Peter jackson (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha wasn't born in India...he was born in Lumbini, Nepal 

message: As I've had no respose after more than a week to my query about the difference on 2 talk pages, I've simply put both in. If anyone is certain they're the same they can delete 1. If anyone knows the difference they can tell me so I can decide which is/are appropriate. Alternatively, they might decide for themself that both are needed. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I know Buddhism might be a minority faith outside Asia, but shouldn't there be more information about Buddhism in Europe or the United States? I was thinking of the writings of Christmas Humphreys or Alan Watts. Would such mention be beyond the scope of this article?Smiloid (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Western Buddhism is mentioned in the Buddhism today section. In addition, most of the article is about those forms, aspects & interpretations of traditional Buddhism that happen to be popular among Western Buddhists, while things like faith, devotion, ritual, karma & rebirth are treated briefly if at all. In effect, the article is mainly about Western Buddhism already. Peter jackson (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Buddhism

message: Could someone who knows a bit more about Tibetan Buddhism have a look at Mindstream and some of the other articles that are mentioned on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard article?  It seems that a great deal of New Age content and original research is being blended together, and passed off as a conventional understanding of some Tibetan Buddhist terms.  --Clay Collier (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, this is all the work of one editor—so it's basically a question of how we should interact with him.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mindstream, etc. 

message: Please include information about the buddhist community fighting against climate change/environmental damage in the article. See the Association of Buddhists for the Environment (ABE
81.246.172.166 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's far too specialized for this article. Perhaps someone can tell you of an appropriate one. Peter jackson (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism against climate change 

message: Recent changes have confused things still further. I've tried to minimize the damage, but we really have to sort this out. First, on the recent changes:
*I'm insisting on the section title Some teachings as long as that's what the section is: ie a haphazard selection of teachings, with others being scattered thro' several other sections of the article & other articles. If we can get the article into some sort of coherent arrangement then these problems won't arise any more.
*The new heading History and origins didn't cover enough. As the editor had it, it covered Indian & modern Buddhism, but not the history of non-Indian Buddhism. I've demoted the traditions headings so they're now in that section, until someone can think of a better idea.
Now what are we going to do about the structure of the article? There are a number of possible ways it could be organized coherently, but the present arrangement isn't one of them.
*Thematic: teachings/doctrines, practices, history, divisions, scriptures ..., or something along those lines
*Denominational:
**general
**Theravada
**Mahayana
***Various subdivisions
*Historical: this has the advantage of being the way most scholarly sources do it, thus making it easier to find citations
*Others?
Peter jackson (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the article 

message: Hello, all involved in improving this article. This article was in the list of articles that need copyedit. But from what I've read here, I'm not sure whether this article is really ready for copyedit or not. It sounds to me like you're considering rewriting/reorganizing some sections, so I wouldn't want to put the effort in before the restructure. What do you think? Pandora (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're right. There's far more to do before we get to that stage. Peter jackson (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll remove the request so that it doesn't show up on the list. When the article is ready for editing, just put the tag back in. Thanks! Pandora (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready for Copyedit?

message: Buddha was not born in India. He was born in Lumbini, NEPAL. Please correct this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by R1 r2 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nepal didn't exist in those days. Do we want to say Kant was born in Russia, Bartok in Roumania, Jesus in the West Bank ...? Peter jackson (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You could say "Buddha was born in Lumbini, a province north of India now known as Nepal."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.191.182 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added something to this effect.  Yours is worded more elegantly so feel free to replace. Thanks.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha  WASNOT born in India 

message: I need help with defending a family member's desire to place a small Budda/angel house outside of her home. The homowners association see's it as "ornamental" (like a bird bath) and I have no way of describing its relilgious an spiritual significance. Could someone please point me to articles that discuss these houses and their uses and purposes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.20.194 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spirit house article is probably what you are looking for, but it is fairly sparse on information.  Googleing 'spirit house' or things connected with the Erawan Shrine would be your best bet.  --Clay Collier (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budda/angel houses (small external shrines) 

message: There were no posts between April 9th and 22nd, so I archived everything up through April 9th into Archive 16.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 16 created

message: The material I've just deleted presents the 4 Noble Truths & 8-fold path as the main teachings of Buddhism. As the citations I've put in the sections on them show, that is not true. Peter jackson (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difs make it difficult to make out exactly what you did, but it looks like you just deleted one line in the lead?  This is fine.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias