![]()
"The avalanche was down,
the hillside swept bare behind it; the last echoes died on the white slopes; the new mount glittered and lay still in the silent valley." Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Contents
Four Noble Truths
In this group of edits, you added a note in the lede which quotes the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. This would be a primary source and when it comes to something like this, the guidelines state: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Your note lacks this reliable secondary source. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Dharmalion76:Isn't that hypocritical since you insisted on primary sources at Yeshe Tsogyal?VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I did no such thing. The Buddhist Path: A Practical Guide from the Nyingma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism is not a primary source and you continually removed without proper discussion. But then you just moved and completely eradicated God in Buddhism with no discussion at all so thinking you WP:OWN articles seems to be your method. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add a secndary source. The point is, and I trust you're completely aware of that, that at the core of Buddhism is the attempt to escape from samsara, not the attempt to strive after happines in this world. That someone starts a discussion about shows a gross lack of understanding of Buddhism, bordering on disruptive: now we're spending time on explainig the basics of Buddhism to ignorant people. That's a waste of my time which I could spend in better ways. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the content of your edit but since there is a large discussion on the talk page, I feel the referencing should rock solid or else things will continue going in circles. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a quote from Patrick Olivelle. And note again that this information is so basic that it shouldn't be controversial or challenging. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add a secndary source. The point is, and I trust you're completely aware of that, that at the core of Buddhism is the attempt to escape from samsara, not the attempt to strive after happines in this world. That someone starts a discussion about shows a gross lack of understanding of Buddhism, bordering on disruptive: now we're spending time on explainig the basics of Buddhism to ignorant people. That's a waste of my time which I could spend in better ways. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I did no such thing. The Buddhist Path: A Practical Guide from the Nyingma Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism is not a primary source and you continually removed without proper discussion. But then you just moved and completely eradicated God in Buddhism with no discussion at all so thinking you WP:OWN articles seems to be your method. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this clean-up: quite radical indeed! Vic likes to be to the point, doesn't he? But I suggest that the two of you dicuss this further at Talk:Creator in Buddhism or your own talkpages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Secondary source and Mahaparinibbana Sutta
@Dharmalion76: Page 162, with note 38 in Carol Anderson's book[1] is a secondary WP:RS on Mahaparinibbana Sutta, that should suffice. But MpS is not the only source, Vinaya Pitaka etc too say the same "by not understanding the four truths, rebirth continues" thing. This is, frankly, pretty basic.Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Carol Anderson (2013). Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon. Routledge. p. 162. ISBN 978-1-136-81325-2.
- As I noted above, I take no issue with the content of the edit but that the sourcing needs to be stronger on an article that is being endlessly discussed on the talk page (a discussion I take no part in and am not criticizing Joshua's edit) Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
4NT talk page edits
@JJ: I somehow deleted a part of @RW's reply on 4NT talk page. I was using Wiki's mobile device edit app. Now the app wouldn't let me fix it. Could u please fix it and insert @RW 14:11 UTC reply back? Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: done. Did somebody miss it? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @JJ: Thanks. I see continued misrepresentations by @RW at WP:AN, but with only mobile app editor access for 2 more days, that is buggy or I am not using it right, I must hold off responding. Take a look at Rebirth (Buddhism) article; it is weak, mostly unsourced, with quite a bit of OR, and important to understanding 4NT article. @John Carter: would you have time and interest in fixing that article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @JJ:, @John Carter: I updated Rebirth (Buddhism) a bit. Needs more work. Your participation would be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Kanhaiya Kumar for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160513052809im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kanhaiya Kumar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanhaiya Kumar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Brahminsm
Hi User, I verified the topic through some sources and the article is ok. The information in the article is partially correct.In ancient India the social system is different and comparing that to the current social system of India is irrelevent. Since this article involves some particular group of people (Brahmins) Care needs to be taken while giving info. Derogatory info should be avoided.Instead of deleting the article we can improve the article by giving proper sources and citations. Unsourced items should be removed from the article.I think the best option is not the removal of article but the improvement of article. Welcoming your suggestions.Thanks in advance.--SanManuDharma (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Brahminsm, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Article Brahminsm citations
The article received heavy criticsm due to lack of citations. So I had added proper citations to each and every information writtien in this article. So I think now the article is satisfying minimum requirement of Wikipedia and so I think there is no need in deleting the article. The neutrality of the article is not disputed since all the facts mentioned in the article can be verified through the citations.Only the facts are mentioned and it is not a particular person's viewpoint.But i think some other view points are missed in the article. That should be added.But deleting of the article is not necessary.I think you are emotionally attached to the topic.Please dont take it as personal.It is just a fact.If you want to improve article or if you want to add other view points it is mostly welcomed.Please reach out to me at anytime regarding improvement of this article.Thanks in advance.--ChatruSamhara (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- You didn't expect the prod to stick, did you, Joshua? I'll support if you AfD it. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC).
- @ChatruSamhara: All article-related discussion is best done at the article's talk page. I will copy your discussion there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- JJ, I've deleted the G5 eligible articles that I found, let me know if there are any others. The SPI should show the socking details. —SpacemanSpiff 15:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @SpacemanSpiff: the problem may have been moved now to Brahminism, though I do I think there is some ground for such an article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
On holiday
On holiday for a couple of days. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Back from holiday. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)