Talk:Kesamutti Sutta

message: The deletion/revisions of the last paragraph raise an interesting issue about the notion of original research on Wikipedia. This is rightly discouraged even if it originates from expert editors. However, the question arises as to when a contribution is original research, and when it is an obvious and uncontroversial extension of extant knowledge.
To take an extreme case, when (say) a celebrity who is married with one child gives birth to another child, an editor who amends the relevant entry to say the celebrity "has two children" could be challenged on the grounds of having contributed original research - to wit, that 1 + 1 = 2 - and must substantiate this claim (for the record, the proof that this is the case takes up an entire page of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica). This example is, I think we can agree, patently absurd, but serves to show that there is no clear dividing line between original research and obvious and uncontroversial extensions of extant knowledge. 
In the specific case of the ref to Pascal's Wager in this entry, I would argue that the current (reinstated) final paragraph may well benefit from some expansion (in the form of direct quotes of the relevant passages), but that the connection with Pascal's Wager is not original research, but an obvious and uncontroversial extension of extant knowledge (the arguments involved being identical to those dealt with by various contributors on the Pascal's Wager entry). 
I am of course perfectly willing to take part in arbitration over this if this is still thought necessary. Pending that arbitration, I would however argue that the paragraph be left in place, on the grounds that the dispute is not over the accuracy of the statement, but over its status, and that even in its current form it provides useful information to those referring to this entry. Robma 11:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I don't really understand the proposed connection between the Kalama Sutta and Pascal's Wager. The Kalama Sutta, as I understand it, argues that practicing Buddhism is beneficial whether or not there is an afterlife. It's true that practicing Buddhism usually entails a belief in karma and rebirth, but this seems incidental to the point that is being argued, which seems to be the beneficial results of virtuous behaviour. On the other hand, Pascal's wager is about the utility in the afterlife of deciding to believe in Christiantiy—or at least to consider it. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Everything in this article in the heading 'Sources of wisdom to avoid' and below there seems a bit too conversational in tone.  The list there seems to just restate the previous list in a less formal fashion (unless I'm missing something?)  And the clarification about misrepresentations and so on seems a bit too conversational in general, like it's talking to the reader -- are there specific quotes to that effect that we could quote instead, or something along those lines? --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too conversational near the end? 

message: The article reads like an essay by some individual with enough expertise to have developed their own unique perspective, and not enough expertise to have published it somewhere other than wikipedia first. The treatment did not seem encyclopedic. In particular, the lead in no way conveys the significance of the topic in the context of Buddhism. It makes out that this is the central pillar, referring to it like a charter or constitution, rather than placing it as one Sutta among thousands. Half of the sources probably support this interpretation, but the other half (possibly the more authoritive looking half) strongly take pains to emphasise that such an interpretation is flawed, which casts doubt on the neutrality of this article, since their view is downplayed here (and the former viewpoint is treated like a consensus - which it may be among important communities, but if so that should still be explicitly discussed to identify who takes which view). There were two many "Venerable"s, again putting the author's independence into question. Too much blatant original "extensions from existing knowledge". And too many long quotes directly from scripture (or worse, duplicated original re-expressions of long quotes from scripture) instead of communicating the interpretations expressed by reliable tertiary sources. These problems make everything else in the article suspect too. It is also strongly disturbing that on the talk pages, editors are arguing for the acknowledgments of dissenting experts to be removed on the basis that those editors feel qualified to refute those sources themselves. (And apparently seek to promote their view of truth, even in the absence of any verifiable sources that support their attempted refutation, and certainly without any interest in presenting an unbiased and duly-weighted survey of the range of different views that are published concerning the topic.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoned well 

message: The ten points not to be solely relied upon have been translated in many different ways by different authors.
I think that the article should reflect the different varieties, such that the reader can get a grasp of that.
The main problem is that this would clutter the paragraph, so maybe the best solution is to suggest one translation first and then later add a paragraph listing alternative translations. Kathedra87 (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of the ten points not to be relied upon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kalama Sutta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510233435/http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/message/kalama1.htm to http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/message/kalama1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified