Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Proposed deletion of Wat Hong

The article Wat Hong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned and completely unverifiable with no sources, "Wat Hong" is a common place name according to a google maps search so this could refer to a number of different places. So there is no proof that this specific place which is described exists

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Uma Thurman stalking case

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Uma Thurman#Request for comment. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain whether anyone still alive watches this page at all, but here goes: unlike her father, Uma Thurman does not have much of a role in Buddhist teaching, history or practice. I am therefore removing this article from the Buddhism Wikiproject. Merely someone being a Buddhist is not enough for inclusion on this project, just like not any Christian American should be included in the Wikiproject Christianity.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS page about articles Buddhism

Dear fellow Wikipedians, In response to repeated discussions about policies and whether they hold for articles on Buddhism, I have drafted a policy proposal to include into the Manual of Style for Wikipedia articles about Buddhism. The proposal does not actually include much new policy, but rather attempts to apply policy to articles on Buddhism in an understandable way, similar to MOS:ISLAM. Content is based on discussions held on Buddhist articles, as listed on the User talk:Farang Rak Tham/Buddhism-related articles#Relevant RfCs and other discussions to integrate in article. Comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Definitions of mindfulness

Would any knowledgeable editors please evaluate Definitions of mindfulness (see also discussion at talk page)? The simplest fix would be a redirect to Mindfulness but perhaps there is some content worth saving or explaining at the primary page. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Commented there, Animalparty, thanks. Btw, shouldn't you start a AfD discussion?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Meh, If the issue can be worked out locally before hand, or simply redirected, there is no need. It would be a waste of time and energy if after 7 days the result was "redirect" or "merge". --Animalparty! (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting assessment of Faith in Buddhism

I have significantly updated Faith in Buddhism since it was last assessed. I would appreciate anyone giving it a reassessment. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Grats and Hi

Anāgāmi -< i dont know yet if its >totally< correct, but this article is as far as i see correct... ive just landed here, im not fully known to this phase whole, i will see, if i find something to add ill let you know. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.90.13 (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

E1:

The fetters from which an anāgāmi is not yet free are:

Rūparāga: Craving for fine-material existence (the first 4 jhanas) Arūparāga: Craving for immaterial existence (the last 4 jhanas)

could you PLEASE add here, craving for fine material unexisting and propperly more important craving for immaterial unexisting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.90.13 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, 178.201.90.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but before you can add something to an article, you need a reliable source first which backs this information up.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Buddhism

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Buddhism needs reviewing

The article Chinese Buddhism needs to be expanded and reviewed. As the largest population of Buddhists in the world I think that Chinese Buddhism deserves a better article. At the current state it is quite messy, with many bare urls and unreliable sources.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add some religious events to ITNR

There is currently a proposal to add some religious events at WP:ITNR. If adopted some or all of the listed events could be added to ITNR and be automatically posted to the main page conditional on the overall quality of the relevant articles. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rather odd to close the discussion there on the same day of posting this request, Ad Orientem. Why the rush? I thought we were working for Wikipedia, not Wall Street. On a practical note, I think you should also add the Supreme_Patriarch_of_Thailand to the Buddhism list. The death of the last Supreme Patriarch there, as well as the subsequent nomination of the new Patriarch, received much coverage in news outlets worldwide. There is one other country with a similar office, that is Cambodia, but I don't believe he has received the same interest.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Farang Rak Tham. The proposal was withdrawn because it had no support and the arguments against it were in my opinion cogent. ITNR is for events that occur with some degree of regularity and can be almost guaranteed to garner sufficient news coverage to pass GNG. While most of the events listed in the proposal would certainly pass GNG, none were regularly occurring. All of these events could be nominated via the normal process at ITNC and presuming adequate article quality would be very likely to pass. Lastly I have no idea what Wall Street has to do with this. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Never mind the Wall Street, but thanks for trying anyway, Ad Orientem.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Holy days, holidays, days of observance or what?

There is a discussion about the word that should be used for religious days in Buddhism. Please weigh in.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Section Recent Articles is no longer being updated

The section Recent Articles is no longer being updated automatically. Or shall I just add my new article there?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Added it myself. Also tagged the project as semi-active, pending a non-active tag. It is becoming a sleepy hollow place here, guys.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
that can be a very skewed perception of what a project is doing or not - just because recent articles is not being updated does not mean some part of the project is still being worked upon or not JarrahTree 23:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. But there has been a pattern of lack of activity for a while, both on the WikiProject itself and the talk page here. Try comparing with other WikiProjects.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
There is the potential to start asking questions or seeing if any one wants to discuss items JarrahTree 08:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
There have been many, JarrahTree. See for example below here. But no response. I noticed there is discussion at Talk:Buddha and Talk:Buddhism. So there are editors interested in editing and discussing Buddhist articles, but they don't use the WikiProject. That's why I have tagged it, to start a discussion as to why the page is no longer used.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it take time before editors either return or get interested - it varies between the quiet projects as to what happens to them to revive JarrahTree 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

facetiousness (as it can be taken), and impatience - are neither part of the buddhist ethic for a start, or editing wikipedia for that matter, - there is an item above which shows you sked another editor regarding urgency over issues. Try patience, and politeness, and we are way in the right direction JarrahTree 13:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not certain what the connection is with marking a Wikiproject as semi-active. This is a useful tag, that will attract more people to take care of the WikiProject.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

that rarely happens -it goes back to the be bold style as promoted ten years ago - all it takes is an adventurous editor to take the tag off , update the maintenance issues (project tagging - adding to talk pages), assessing some pages, and the basic machinery of government of a project is slowly moving again, as to whether others ever actually take up the signs of life is another thing again... inactive tags usually put people off, specially if they are not into project maintenance JarrahTree 23:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested article: Tibet House, London

Would anybody care to create a stub for Tibet House, 1 Culworth Street, London, which "aims to reflect the aspirations of the Tibetan community ... based on His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s principles of truth, non-violence and genuine democracy." http://www.tibet-house-trust.co.uk/aboutus/ (We already have an article on Tibet House in NY, NY, so this should be at Tibet House, London ? or Tibet House (London) ?) (Not sure about naming conventions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.63.116 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If the topic is notable, consider asking at Talk:Dalai Lama or Talk:14th Dalai Lama.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing the template name LayBuddhistPractices?

Please join in and give your opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Vesak a new year celebration?

Your opinion in this discussion is appreciated.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism/Templates

Updated.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Treeleaf Zendo

Comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of redirect

Please comment on this discussion of this redirect: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 6#Rise of Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Buddhism and rulership

Buddhism and Rulership currently redirects to Buddhist philosophy, Buddhism and rulership currently redirects to Buddhist kingship. I have proposed that they should both point to the same article, but I don't have a preference for which. You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 3#Buddhism and Rulership. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 29#Category:Buddhist martyrs

Your input is much encouraged.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lesser

Everyone's input here is much appreciated (click on the section title). Only two people have commented so far, and the discussion might mot be thorough enough.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2018

In November 2018, Women in Red is focusing on Religion.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

An RM to move Eight Precepts to eight precepts

On the talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Talk:Kenshō#Request for comments

Input would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kaundinya

I am currently reassessing the article Kaundinya, as I believe it (no longer?) meets GA criteria. Feel free to share your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding Buddhist era date to Gautama Buddha's article

See also: Talk:Gautama Buddha § Buddha's Buddhist era date honored just like Christian Era/Islamic Era

hi,

please i need consensus on adding Theravada's Buddhist era to the Gautama Buddha's article, there is no objection on using Christian era according to Christian traditions in Jesus christ's article, there is no objection on using Islamic era in Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)'s date, so i think that Buddhist era should also be respected/honoured while maintaining the rest of western devised two contested Buddha's dates as well with which i have no issues, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason I suggested bringing it up here is that if it's worth including in the Gautama article, it's worth including in many other articles relating to Buddhist history, similar to how we include AH dates in articles on Islamic topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
What exactly would you like to add? From Buddhist calendar:

Today, the traditional Buddhist lunisolar calendar is used mainly for Theravada Buddhist festivals, and no longer has the official calendar status anywhere.

THat's quite different from Christian Era or Islamic Era. Also:

In all Theravada traditions, the calendar's epochal year 0 date was the day in which the Buddha attained parinibbāna. However, not all traditions agree on when it actually took place. In Burmese Buddhist tradition, it was 13 May 544 BCE (Tuesday, Full moon of Kason 148 Anjanasakaraj). But in Thailand, it was 11 March 545 BCE, the date which the current Thai lunisolar and solar calendars use as the epochal date.

Compare to the first line of Gautama Buddha:

Gautama Buddha (c. 563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE)

So, what's the use of a set of unofficial calendars, disagreeing among each other and with scholarly estimates, and only being used by Theravadins, not Mahayanists? And what exactly would you loike to add, then? Note, also, that Buddhism-articles use Before Common Era, not Before Christ. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
what has not being used for official purpose got anything to do with the Buddha's article, whether it is used officially or unofficially, it is still a calender system and the point is irrelevant, not to mention Thai solar calendar uses Buddhist era as solar calendar officially, the other point of not all traditions agreeing with each other is the same with jesus's birthdate where the western traditions say his birth date is in december compared to other orthodox traditions which say is in mid of the year, so its hardly relevant, point is, buddha's nirvana has a date from buddhist traditions and should be mentioned in the Gautama Buddha's article, about scholarly dates, the last date/ more closer date has been proposed as a revision to the earlier date and has been contested by the scholars who agree on the earlier date so both of these dates are also contested, the buddhist era date is also backed by archaeological dating of the lumbini site, so i think we can put all three dates, one proposed by archaeology and backed by traditional dating, others proposed by western scholars, since islamic dating is honoured, as with christian dating, same standards should be applied for buddhist dating as well and i dont think that a major change would be needed to change every other dates since there are not much time lines based on buddhist era, like it is for islamic era and christian era etc, on more point i need to mention is, rome's foundation date has been mentioned at the very beginning of article 'Rome', even though it is considered 'legendary' according to archaeology, so i think that traditional dates have been mentioned in all articles based on their prior traditions, Buddhist era is also mentioned as one among other calendar systems in Calendar era as well, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
We don't include Ab urbe condita in articles. We also don't use Anno Mundi in articles on Jewish topics. Not opposed in principle to including them, though that opens a very impractical door. Including those would raise the question of where we stop adding alternative calendar systems because we really can't sit down and add the Seleucid era to Persian articles, Spanish era to Iberian articles, the Sothic cycle to Egyptian, the Long Count to Mesoamerican calendars, the Holocene era to all articles relating to humanity, Before Present to all articles... (The last one would require writing a template that converts from Common era to Before Present, which would be necessary for almost all of the others anyway). We would have to come up with clear reasons for which calendars are going to be used and why. Right now, the pattern at first glance could seem to be "calendar systems that are used by multiple national governments," but there is the slight disconnect that it's really the Solar Hijri calendar used by just two countries while other Islamic countries use Hijri calendars only to determine public holidays (beyond that, almost everyone use the Gregorian calendar or some variant for their civil calendar and most use that or local calendars for agriculture). If we went with "calendar systems currently used by more than X population groups with at least Y members for any purpose," that potentially opens the door to just the Gregorian, Hijri, and Buddhist calendars.
This is, however, heading into territory that would be more appropriate for one of the village pumps. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The Buddhist Era should be mentioned in the articles on Buddhism and Buddha. That should be sufficient.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Rael

Raël, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Successors of Gautama Buddha

There is a draft at Draft:Successors of Gautama Buddha that needs your input as to whether this is notable enough for a separate article. Please discuss at Talk:Gautama Buddha on your thoughts and input. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Tibetan Buddhism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Tibetan Buddhism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tibetan Buddhism 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the article about Ikeda center be deleted?

Please give your opinion here, since we are having a hard time coming to a conclusion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How to get informed of new wiki articles on Buddhism, deletions and nominations

If you are interested in being updated with this, make sure to add the page with article alerts to your watchlist.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"the Eight Verses": reference or article needed

Tonglen#Practice says

The Dalai Lama offers a translation of the Eight Verses in his book The Path To Tranquility: Daily Meditations.

But there's no reference or other mention of "the Eight Verses", and no article for it/them. I am not at all knowledgeable in this area and am not competent to supply the missing information. Please see Talk:Tonglen#Eight Verses for details. --Thnidu (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Thnidu. Feel free to start a new article, if you would like to.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Farang Rak Tham: I would if I could. But as I said, I am not the least bit qualified to do so, and it would take me a great deal of novice-level research. That's why I posted this notice here. --Thnidu (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the Portal about Buddhism be deleted?

Discussion is taking place here. If you would like to be informed about similar changes to Buddhist articles, add the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism/Article alerts to your watchlist.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Merging the Vinaya and Vinaya Pitaka articles

I was taking a look at adding material to the Vinaya article and noticed that we also have Vinaya Pitaka which largely covers the same subject. I suggest that these articles be merged so that effort can be focused in one place- if you have opinions or suggestions, please join the discussion. --Spasemunki (talk)

Agree with merge of Vinaya Pitaka into Vinaya. Subject matter is largely overlapping, but I am uncertain whether other early textual traditions apart from the Pāli tradition use the word Vinaya Piṭaka. Regardless, all relevant textual traditions should be discussed in the article, not just Pāli.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree.. I think rather than a pure merge and redirect, I may relocate the material from other traditions into the Vinaya article, and leave Vinaya Pitaka for the Pali-specific tradition, with a hat note to make clear what each article covers. --Spasemunki (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment If we do merge them shouldn't we also merge Abhidharma and Abhidharma Pitaka as well as Sutta Pitaka and Sutra? Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I would support simply relocating the material so that there is a clear distinction between Vinaya and Vinaya Pitaka, im open to a pure merge but only if we address the issue i raised above. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest following the same principle- Abhidharma should be for the general idea of Abhidharma literature, Abhidhamma Pitaka for the Pali texts, Sutra for the general class of sutra texts, Sutta Pitaka for the portion of the Pali Tipitaka. I think that principle is already generally being followed- Sutta Pitaka is specific to the Pali tradition, Sutra deals with the more general class of sutra literature. Sutra Pitaka needs some attention but should probably direct people to the Agamas and Sutta Pitaka. --Spasemunki (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Following the pattern of reserving Pitaka for the Pali texts sounds good to me. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the distinction is important.
1. Vinaya Piṭaka refers to the collection and classification of vinaya literature. Piṭakas have been used historically by several Buddhist schools. It's also currently, and appropriately, used as a child category for Category:Pāli Canon.
2. The Vinaya is itself a subject and genre of literature, among which include the Mahīsasaka-vinaya, Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya, Dharmagupta-vinaya and Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya. Then there's the Taishō Tripiṭaka, whose English translation is a wip...
That being said, each article can definitely be reworked to give more focus. --Invokingvajras(talk) 12:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the non-Pali material to Vinaya and added hatnotes there and on Vinaya Pitaka to reflect the organization we discussed. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Should article about Won Institute be deleted?

There is a deletion discussion here where we need more participation in.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism

Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thich Tri Quang

Nominated for inclusion in 'Recent Deaths' at WP:ITN/C Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism in India, and its history

There is a requested move here, for which everyone's input is needed. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Are Sutta Central and Palikanon.com suitable as external links?

There is a discussion going on here about the suitability of mentioned websites as External Links, as to whether they are spam and whether they are scholarly in nature. Feel free to take part, anyone.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Linkspam in 'See Also' Sections

I've noticed that someone(s) have added 'Secular Buddhism' in the 'See Also' section of a wide number of Buddhism articles, often articles with no or at best tangential relationship to the topic. It's difficult to quickly tell using 'What links here' which articles it was included in for spurious reasons and where it was included as part of the topic, but it's worth keeping an eye out for. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Spasemunki, this has happened before, and the user has already been warned for this. Could you help point out which articles are still being spammed?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Sutra and Caodong school are the most recent ones that I've seen, but I don't know when the link was added- it may have been from before the action was taken against the spammer. I thought there had been a few more a few months back, but I can't find them in my contribs right now. Unfortunately because of its inclusion in a template that is in the footer of a lot of pages, it's hard to verify when it's being linked inappropriately. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Spasemunki, what's the name of the user again?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I have found him. It appears the IP has been used to spam external links for quite a while now. I have reported him here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thich Quang Do

Nominated at WP:ITN/C under the recent deaths section Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No reason for using Devanagari in Buddhist articles

It seems there are certain users that want to add Devanagari script renditions of terms in numerous articles about Buddhism on Wikipedia. There seems to be no good reason for this, other than perhaps nationalistic or revisionist ones.

Devanagari does not come from the time of the Buddha or from the time of Ashoka (from which date the first Buddhist related inscriptions), as the wki article says it reached regular use by the 7th century CE.

None of the major Buddhist canons (Tibetan, Chinese, Pali) are recorded in Devanagari, they use Chinese, Tibetan script and various South Asian scripts like Sinhala or Burmese. None of the major publications of these canons use Devanagari. Even the Sanskrit Buddhist texts are mostly not published in Devanagari, but use IAST instead. None of the main scholarly publications on Sanskritic Buddhism use Devanagari either, they all use IAST (for example: Siderits and Katsura 's "Nagarjuna's Middle Way: Mulamadhyamakakarika").

It makes absolutely no sense to put Devanagari in Buddhist articles. For these reasons, I am removing any instance of these that I see. Anyone have any objections? Javierfv1212 14:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Stick to the traditional Buddhist Canon languages or national languages when relavent. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree per proposal and reasons given at WP:INDICSCRIPT.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Tantric Theravada?

Your input is needed here in this discussion. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Mysticism

I wonder whether any one in this WikiProject would be interested in my proposal for a "WikiProject Mysticism" that I have made at Wikipedia: WikiProject Council. Vorbee (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Unknown-importance Buddhism articles

Category:Unassessed Buddhism articles has been kept low or empty for some time, but I noticed that Category:Unknown-importance Buddhism articles has just over 2,500 articles listed, so I'm going to see what dent I can put in that number, but if anyone would like to help it would be appreciated, and of course if anyone disagrees with my assessment of any article I won't take offense if you feel it needs to be changed or if the change should be discussed. - Aoidh (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on ecclesiastical titles

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. It is a bit Christian-centric as currently written, so the opinions of those with knowledge of other religions is especially welcome. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Need collabration on new article on the comparison of Nikāya and āgama texts

Regarding the draft page here Guys, I am trying to create a new page on the comparison of Nikāya and āgama texts and I need your help for that. The page needs tables for comparison of texts in these two canons. The resources and papers I would be using for now for this are [1], [2] and [3]

Looks good to me. The introduction paragraph seems to be a little too long though, and you shouldn't refer to a text (See so-and-so...) without reference note. Still, looks thorough, promising.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dhammadinna, Bhikkhuni. "Research on the Dīrgha-āgama".
  2. ^ Dhammadinna, Bhikkhuni. "Research on the Madhyama-āgama".
  3. ^ Bucknell, Roderick S. "The structure of the Sanskrit Dirgha-agama from Gilgit vis-a-vis the Pali Digha-nikaya".

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Asian art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Women in Red Asian women contest

From 1 October to 31 December, Women in Red is running a virtual contest on Asian women. In November, this will coincide with Wikipedia Asian Month. We look forward to strong participation from all those interested in improving coverage of Buddhist women in Asia.--Ipigott (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Buddhist ethics (discipline)

Can someone tell me if this is a real thing that's worth having a separate article on? My sense is that it's analogous to analytical Marxism, in which academic philosophers make use of a pre-existing tradition to inaugurate a new research programme. Perhaps worth a mention in Buddhist ethics, but it's not clear to me that it warrants a separate article (and is, in any event, mostly WP:OR at the moment). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

honorifics

Has there been any discussion on use of honorifics in article titles? Palden Sherab was recently moved to Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche. It looks like both Khenchen and Rinpoche are titles rather than part of his actual name? Is that akin to moving Elizabeth II to Her Majesty The Queen? —valereee (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there somewhere else I should be asking this? Maybe MOS? —valereee (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Its a case by case basis. Generally speaking, per MOS:HONORIFIC honorifics are discouraged in the article title. But there are exceptions if it is part of the normal form of address/necessary to identify the person accurately, clergy is often cited as one of those exceptions. For instance, Pope Francis, Cardinal Richelieu, and Mother Theresa are okay to have honorifics in the title. In the case of Buddhism having titles like Ajahn Chah is generally acceptable but His Holiness The Dalai Lama not so much. I'm not familiar enough with Tibetan titles to say whether or not those titles you mention are part of the normal form of address or not. In this case you should consider if Khenchen and Rinpoche are more akin to the Thai "Ajahn" title or the "His Holiness" title. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Wikiman5676 hm...it looks like Ajahn basically translates to professor or teacher, so maybe he's so well known by that tittle that it's actually a question of COMMONNAME rather than a question of giving an honorific? —valereee (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee Yes, well Luang Pu and Luang Por are also common usage honorifics for thai monks that mean venerable grandfather and venerable father. Again it depends, I'm not familiar enough with Tibetan Buddhism to comment for Khenchen or Rinpoche but Luang Pu/Luang Por and Ajahn are generally acceptable among Thai monk page titles. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Tapihritsa

Article threatened with proposed deletion. New sources have been listed under 'Further reading'. Help would be appreciated. Skyerise (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Buddhist temple 6,640 221 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bodhi Tree#Requested move 8 June 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bodhi Tree#Requested move 8 June 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Theophany not appropriate term in this Buddhist context ??

Theophany says:

Theophany (from Ancient Greek (ἡ) θεοφάνεια theophaneia,[1] meaning "appearance of a deity") is the manifestation of a deity in an observable way.[2][3]

the section "Divine appearances to animals" goes on:

In Chinese mythology, the Monkey King speaks with bodhisattvas, buddhas, and a host of heavenly characters.[34]

Presumably bodhisattvas and buddhas should not be classified as "deities" or "divinities" ??

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:25D6:1132:F11:FAC8 (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Template:Yoga

I'm proposing extensive changes to the Yoga navbox and would appreciate the input of those interested in WikiProject Buddhism and the topic of yoga in Buddhism.

Please discuss the changes at this link; discussion elsewhere may be missed:

Template_talk:Yoga#Proposed_partial_reorganisation

Explanations for my proposed changes are listed at the discussion page linked above along with a draft which I will update as the discussion proceeds. Scyrme (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gautama Buddha#Requested move 4 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gautama Buddha#Requested move 4 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 03:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors may wish to review this draft

Draft:Namchak Tsasum Lingpa --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox Buddha}}

FYI, {{Infobox Buddha}} has been proposed to be merged away -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_8#Template:Infobox_Buddha & the proposal is to merge it with {{Infobox deity}}. Peaceray (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Involvement in discussion

Hello. I'd like to invite the WikiProject members to this discussion. I've seen no response for nearly a month. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 02:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Solavirum I've had that problem before. Send him a message on his talk page, send him an email if that's possible, and if he still doesn't respond, re-nominate.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Farang Rak Tham, that's not what I meant. See "Religion or sect" section, which requires opinion from the wiki-community. I don't feel its right for me to decide on such thing just by myself. There's nothing wrong with the GAN process atm, just to note that here. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 08:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I am giving my opinion there.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation guides for Sanskrit and Pali words

I'd appreciate it if more articles about Buddhism had information about the native pronunciation of religious terms in Sanskrit and Pali, such as bodhicitta and Mahāyāna. If not an IPA transcription, at least an indication of which romanization system is used (probably the IAST) so that the reader can infer the native pronunciation. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Renaming Buddhist painting

Buddhist painting has a name that might be too vauge and refer to a specific Northeast Asian tradition. Can someone look over it and confirm that this is the right title or propose a title change? Immanuelle (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Gautama Buddha#Requested move 6 April 2022

this may be of interest Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Vihāra#Requested_move_14_April_2022

Please check this out! Likely to close soon. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

yoga-template update suggestions - pls review - thx

I've provided a draft of possible updates to the Yoga template. Could you please check and comment on this - thx

Frank Samyamananda (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback requested at Gautama Buddha move request

Hello. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Gautama Buddha#Requested move 5 October 2022. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Rebirth and Brahmanism

Could it be that the Buddha used a Brahmanical view of rebirth, but gave his own twist to it, as he did with other concepts? That is, the Brahmanical concept of re-embodiment of some atman, reinterpreted as the rebirth of ego? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting it, but I don't think so. Since suttas say he knew rebirth was true by abhinna, and its not like everyone even believed in rebirth in his time. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Clearing out Category:Unknown-importance Buddhism articles

Category:Unknown-importance Buddhism articles currently has 1,500 entries in it. Similar to how Category:Unassessed Buddhism articles has been cleared out and as of writing is completely empty, I'd like to make it so that this category is also empty, so if anyone would like to join me in chipping away at these 1,500 unknown-importance articles I think we could make relatively quick work of it. - Aoidh (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As an update, I've been whittling down the category and it's now at 500 entries. At this rate it should be empty within a month or so. - Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Now down to 250 entries. - Aoidh (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
It's empty! It went from 2,500+ articles in June 2020 to 0 as of today. The intention and hope is that now we have a more complete picture of what articles are important in terms of the scope of this WikiProject. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Great work! Well done. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you help to fix links to the disambiguation page Early Buddhism? There are multiple links shown in this list which should probably link to Pre-sectarian Buddhism or Early Buddhist schools but I am not expert enough to know which. Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 12:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at that list, without the contexts, it doesn't strike me that there are that many obvious ones. Both those articles are pretty technical & unlikely to be what a reader of eg Japanese architecture (on the list I think) wants. In most cases a link to just History of Buddhism is likely to be best. Or History of Buddhism in India. What is meant by "early" varies enormously, but generally it all took place in India, well South Asia anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment and I see what you mean about the meaning of early. A few have been fixed, but there are still 91 articles with these links so any help with sorting out a few more would be helpful.— Rod talk 12:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Buddha

The page which had been Gautama Buddha was unsuccessfully proposed for a change to Siddhartha Gautama, then successfully changed to The Buddha, and is now being proposed for a change to Buddha. Your input and expertise would be most welcome at: Talk:The_Buddha#Requested_move_25_November_2022 Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback needed for a page I've created

Hi everyone,

Here is a page I've created recently: Buddhism and artificial intelligence

I'm a student at the University of Edinburgh. I've created this page and am editing it for my school project. Would love some feedback on this. Specifically, please show me how to improve its styles to match with Wikipedia's convention since the tag says it needs copy-editing. Thank you very much! Jlkzhou (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested Move at Talk:The Buddha

Currently, there is a move discussion going on, proposing that the article The Buddha be renamed and moved back to ⟶ Gautama Buddha. Restoring the name before the title is important as the page is related to the person and not the title itself. Title must come before or after a name and using a title as a name is improper way to refer to person even if it is widely associated with a single person. Examples of similar situation includes - Mahatma Gandhi, Mansa Musa, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, separate pages for Jesus and Christ (title), separate pages for Elizabeth II and The Queen, etc. Your input would be most welcome at this discussion. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Snow-closed already. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft feedback and review

Draft:James Edward Ketelaar


Hi guys — I'm a new editor here on Wikipedia. Creating a page for James E. Ketelaar, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. He teaches and researches Japanese religion. Would love to hear your feedback, and, if possible, what I need to do to have the page published / reviewed.

Looking forward to working with you,

Coroz Coroz12 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

This deletion attempt may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Darshan (Indian religions)#Requested move 11 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Darshan (Indian religions)#Requested move 11 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western tulku

There is also a merge discussion at Talk:Tulku#Merge from Western tulku. Skyerise (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Borobudur Featured article review

User:SandyGeorgia has nominated Borobudur for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Buddhism: An Analysis of Reliability and Bias in the World’s Largest Online Encyclopedia

For the interested. From the blog worldreligionnews.com. I can't say I feel very enlightened for reading it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please look at Tukdam and Talk:Tukdam

I am trying to attract some attention to a new article Tukdam. It was created by the colleague Skyerise. By the time I have stumbled upon it as a part of WP:NPP, it looked like that. I have added a source and some text, the article started to look pretty much like the current one. Naturally, I have patrolled the article.

  • Since I am clueless in the field of Tibetan Buddhism, my first request is for someone with experience to review my changes.

After that, I tried to remove three IMHO questionable sources from the "External links" section. Skyerise objected and insisted that the links should be kept.

  • Since we were not able to find a consensus on the talk page, I hereby also ask the project participants to look at the Talk:Tukdam to help me and Skyerise.

I would like to stress that there is absolutely no emergency here. The article, at least on the surface, looks OKish. There are no major problems with the controversial links either. Thankful in advance to the ones willing to lend a hand, Викидим (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Викидим: can't be bothered to scroll down the the bottom of a page to see that the link to a documentary is made by an award-winning filmmaker whose previous award-winning documentaries with international festival and TV exposure include Stone Pastures and A Gesar Bard’s Tale. His films have been shown by the European Commission and museums such as MoMA and the Rubin Museum. And is currently doing a PhD in medical anthropology at UC Berkeley and holds degrees in philosophy and psychology and music and media technologies from Trinity College Dublin, as well as a master’s in Asian studies from UC Berkeley.
And he can't be bothered to figure out that a Gelug monk in a production hosted by Radio Free Asia Tibetan is actually a subject-matter expert and not some random dude on YouTube. Pretty sure it says that in Tibetan on the YouTube video. Skyerise (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for providing here at least the partial information requested on the talk page. I will transfer these descriptions to the article page.Викидим (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Currently being discussed at:
Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Tukdam

Eyes needed. Skyerise (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)