Talk:Four Noble Truths

message: Copied from User talk:Dharmalion76#WP:UGC
Hi Dharmalion76. Blogs by single persons are not WP:UGC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The author is not a recognized expert and the bulk of them were extraneous references on things already referenced. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we better avoid links to blogs, personal websites and self-published content.  JimRenge (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

text: End of copied part
 rgerading the vents so far:
* you removed David Chapman, stating 
* I reverted you, stating 
* you reverted me, stating 
WP:RSSELF, just like WP:UGC, is about sources; this is not a source or reference, but a note, giving a link to additional info; David Chapman is quite usefull in this regard. David Chapman is a noted blogger on Buddhism; his series on the origins of western Buddhism caused quite a stir in Dutch (Zen) Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

text: David Chapman is a noted blogger on Buddhism? Noted by whom? He writes Buddhism for Vampires so his views are hardly non-controversial. The note was in the form of referencing the statement made in the body so it was a reference whatever you choose to call it. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood. The link was provided in a note with additional info, and clearly introduced with "See also." That's not a reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The blogs are in a  format. They are being used to further reference the statements which precede them. Putting "see also" at the end of a string of references shows they are related and further reference the subject at hand. David Chapman is not a recognized authority and I don't understand why you are fighting so hard for his inclusion where it isn't needed. None of the places where I removed his blog required the reference. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in this place I didn't intend Chapman to be used as a reference. And I'm 'fighting so hard for inclusion' because Chapman's series of blogs back then were very insightfull for me, back then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can respect that they were insightful for you but that isn't inclusion criteria. They are blogs from someone who is not a recognized expert. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UGC]] 

message: I have read over and over that "desire is an inaccurate translation of tanha- that it is not desire but a specific KIND of desire: craving, thirst, attachment, "self-centered" or "selfish" desire.
This page has a few references to primary Buddhist sources which say there is a difference. [].
This distinction is talked about in the Tanha article.
I propose we take out the word "desire" out of the lead and let this nuance be dealt with in the Tanha article or in the 2nd Noble Truth article. Sethie (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of several possible translations; because of the ambiguity of the word, and the problem of 'translation = interpretation', I think it's best to keep, to show this ambiguity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation of Tanha as "Desire"