![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Please do not delete. I have revised the article extensively. The draft you deleted was my first working draft and you froze the article before all the edits were made.
In retrospect I should have edited the article in my sandbox.
@Richard Lin, we have a problem here. The wmflabs tool you use is not accurate for this type of article. This article is based on religious scripture, historical names, and nomenclature. There is no substitute, for example, for a terms like "Bodhisattvas of the Earth," "Shakyamuni," "Bodhisattva Superior Practices," "Lotus Sutra," etc. The one passage from "The True Aspect of All Phenomenon" cannot be substituted with another one--it is a very famous passage and the sole one to make the point here. Thus quantitative measures derived from the wmflabs tool should not include such words or quotations. When these words are subtracted the percentage total of replicated words or phrases will be minimal. I believe direct quotes are properly cited and attributed. Thank you.
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the person who replaced the tag offers no proof of plagiarism besides someone's blog entry that in fact postdates this article. I am afraid that the author of this blog posting in fact plagiarized FROM this article.-- BrandenburgG ( talk) 16:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This article at this point is SGI full stop. This term stems from the Lotus Sutra??!!!
SGI=Sota Gakai Internacional is a not autentic group zen budist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra avaloquiteshvara ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to ask for opinions about removing the tags that precede the article. There are no copyright issues as far as I can see. A WP robot found a blog entry somewhere that was similar to the article. However, the author of the blog copied the WP version that was out there at that time.
I am working on a few additional sources for Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, and Rissho Kosei-kai and these will soon appear.
I am going to keep working on this article until all objections are met so please do not hesitate to find ways it can be strengthened. BrandenburgG ( talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I would strongly advise you not to delete the tags and instead work on the article. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because there is absolutely no plagiarism. A robot picked up a similarity to a blog posting: https://nichirenbuddhisminthemodernworld.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/458/. Note the date of this posting. The article precedes the blog posting. I'm afraid that the blog posting infringed on the article and not the other way around. BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I know there is still discussion on whether this article should remain. Fair discussion. But in the interim can we please see whether any of the tags merit removal.
These are the current tags, all stemming from early 2015: 1-This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (January 2015) 2-The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2015) 3-This article possibly contains original research. (January 2015) 4-This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (January 2015)
IMHO the article is much more comprehensive than its first forms. I would like to see each of these points discussed. Can any of these tags be removed? BrandenburgG ( talk) 02:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@ JimRenge: please indicate why you felt "The Nichiren Mandala Study Workshop, "The mandala in Nichiren Buddhism, Part One: Introduction: mandalas of the Bun’ei and Kenji periods" was not appropriate. I know that this is a self-published book and it is not clear who are the people in the workshop. But wouldn't this still qualify as an appropriate source? They, it is true, are engaging in OR. But I, as an editor, am not. BrandenburgG ( talk) 21:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally think it would be a mistake to merge this article with the Lotus Sutra article. To several of the Nichiren and Lotus sects, the BOE is such a prominent topic that readers will look for a stand alone treatment. There is no shortage of sources on the precise topic and I think we have only just scratched the surface. BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Well Nichiren and Lotus sects are usually referred to as being the same thing. Again, the weighting of the BOE is quite differently interpreted within various sects, lineages and organisations that claim to be based the Lotus Sutra. The BOE are no separate concept outside of the LS but have to be discussed and described as a part of the LS. I see no problem to include a section on the BOE within the article on the LS, but the BOE, and dogmatic effects on various Nichiren groups, should be discussed in the articles on respective groups. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see this entry expanded rather than combined. The effect of the BOE on the Buddha's disciples is mind-boggling. It prepares them for the 16th chapter and the truth of Shakyamuni's enlightenment. There is so much drama attached to their appearance, so much meaning, that could be expanded. Goldenrescue15 ( talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this topic should be extensively discussed, though a merger seems not essential. I'd like to restate that BoE comes up in some of non-religious online Japanese dictionaries as a stand alone item. Lmkei22 ( talk) 14:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This might very well be my last entry for some time being here on en.wikipedia. What other issues are there that are raised within the LS that cannot be discussed in the article on the Sutra itself? So far references given are linked to schools based on, or at least who value the, LS. If resources would be included, as one editor indicated, that would describe the BoE influence for instance on literature in general it would support the separate article as such. In that case I could then understand to have a standalone article on the BoE outside a religious context. The BoE are an indeed prominent feature of the LS, if not even a key issue. Having said that the BoE’s religious implications should be discussed in the article on the LS or linked to religious groups based on the LS. The religious groups that focus on the BoE are very, very limited, what implications that has within the dogma of respective groups should be discussed separately. The groups to whom the BoE are a dogmatically noteworthy issue cannot agree on what weight should be given to the BoE. If in the end the article’s only purpose is to highlight that within Nichiren Buddhism there is no agreement on how to treat and interpret the BoE why not elaborate on within exiting articles? It say this because as the article’s history indicates towards the weight given to the BoE as part of the Soka Gakkai dogma – there is nothing wrong with that as such, it just puzzles me that the article on SG/SGI does not underline the issue.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A consensus seems to have been reached with five people opposing a merger and one person supporting it. I am going to remove the tag. Lmkei22 ( talk) 01:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello BrandenburgG, I am a bit concerned about your use of 100 year old sources. Anesaki was a pioneer of Buddhist studies in Japan but his writings are outdated. Ruben Habito comments: "(...) Anesaki Masaharu's 1916 work, Nichiren, the Buddhist Prophet, which portrayed Nichiren in glorious terms as embodying features of both mystic and prophet (two typologies often set in contrast in religious studies), but which based these largely on texts that later scholars (beginning with Asai Yorin) earmarked as questionable." (Ruben L. F. Habito, Reviewed Work: Nichiren, der Ausübende des Lotos-Sūtra by Yukio Matsudo. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2005), pp. 166-174, see p 171) Anesakis translation of BOE as "Saints-out-of-Earth" appears problematic. The age of a source does matter; it may be a good idea to avoid such sources. JimRenge ( talk) 12:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:AGE MATTERS, "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. (...)" ( see also WP:ONUS) Proposed changes and supplements to this policy can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.
I think the Anesaki´s translation of "Bodhisattvas of the Earth" as "Saints-out-of-Earth" has been superseded. It should be removed per MOS:NEO. Saint is not a generally accepted translation of the term Bodhisattva. JimRenge ( talk) 11:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Please do not delete. I have revised the article extensively. The draft you deleted was my first working draft and you froze the article before all the edits were made.
In retrospect I should have edited the article in my sandbox.
@Richard Lin, we have a problem here. The wmflabs tool you use is not accurate for this type of article. This article is based on religious scripture, historical names, and nomenclature. There is no substitute, for example, for a terms like "Bodhisattvas of the Earth," "Shakyamuni," "Bodhisattva Superior Practices," "Lotus Sutra," etc. The one passage from "The True Aspect of All Phenomenon" cannot be substituted with another one--it is a very famous passage and the sole one to make the point here. Thus quantitative measures derived from the wmflabs tool should not include such words or quotations. When these words are subtracted the percentage total of replicated words or phrases will be minimal. I believe direct quotes are properly cited and attributed. Thank you.
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the person who replaced the tag offers no proof of plagiarism besides someone's blog entry that in fact postdates this article. I am afraid that the author of this blog posting in fact plagiarized FROM this article.-- BrandenburgG ( talk) 16:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This article at this point is SGI full stop. This term stems from the Lotus Sutra??!!!
SGI=Sota Gakai Internacional is a not autentic group zen budist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra avaloquiteshvara ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to ask for opinions about removing the tags that precede the article. There are no copyright issues as far as I can see. A WP robot found a blog entry somewhere that was similar to the article. However, the author of the blog copied the WP version that was out there at that time.
I am working on a few additional sources for Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, and Rissho Kosei-kai and these will soon appear.
I am going to keep working on this article until all objections are met so please do not hesitate to find ways it can be strengthened. BrandenburgG ( talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I would strongly advise you not to delete the tags and instead work on the article. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because there is absolutely no plagiarism. A robot picked up a similarity to a blog posting: https://nichirenbuddhisminthemodernworld.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/458/. Note the date of this posting. The article precedes the blog posting. I'm afraid that the blog posting infringed on the article and not the other way around. BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I know there is still discussion on whether this article should remain. Fair discussion. But in the interim can we please see whether any of the tags merit removal.
These are the current tags, all stemming from early 2015: 1-This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (January 2015) 2-The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2015) 3-This article possibly contains original research. (January 2015) 4-This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (January 2015)
IMHO the article is much more comprehensive than its first forms. I would like to see each of these points discussed. Can any of these tags be removed? BrandenburgG ( talk) 02:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@ JimRenge: please indicate why you felt "The Nichiren Mandala Study Workshop, "The mandala in Nichiren Buddhism, Part One: Introduction: mandalas of the Bun’ei and Kenji periods" was not appropriate. I know that this is a self-published book and it is not clear who are the people in the workshop. But wouldn't this still qualify as an appropriate source? They, it is true, are engaging in OR. But I, as an editor, am not. BrandenburgG ( talk) 21:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally think it would be a mistake to merge this article with the Lotus Sutra article. To several of the Nichiren and Lotus sects, the BOE is such a prominent topic that readers will look for a stand alone treatment. There is no shortage of sources on the precise topic and I think we have only just scratched the surface. BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Well Nichiren and Lotus sects are usually referred to as being the same thing. Again, the weighting of the BOE is quite differently interpreted within various sects, lineages and organisations that claim to be based the Lotus Sutra. The BOE are no separate concept outside of the LS but have to be discussed and described as a part of the LS. I see no problem to include a section on the BOE within the article on the LS, but the BOE, and dogmatic effects on various Nichiren groups, should be discussed in the articles on respective groups. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see this entry expanded rather than combined. The effect of the BOE on the Buddha's disciples is mind-boggling. It prepares them for the 16th chapter and the truth of Shakyamuni's enlightenment. There is so much drama attached to their appearance, so much meaning, that could be expanded. Goldenrescue15 ( talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this topic should be extensively discussed, though a merger seems not essential. I'd like to restate that BoE comes up in some of non-religious online Japanese dictionaries as a stand alone item. Lmkei22 ( talk) 14:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This might very well be my last entry for some time being here on en.wikipedia. What other issues are there that are raised within the LS that cannot be discussed in the article on the Sutra itself? So far references given are linked to schools based on, or at least who value the, LS. If resources would be included, as one editor indicated, that would describe the BoE influence for instance on literature in general it would support the separate article as such. In that case I could then understand to have a standalone article on the BoE outside a religious context. The BoE are an indeed prominent feature of the LS, if not even a key issue. Having said that the BoE’s religious implications should be discussed in the article on the LS or linked to religious groups based on the LS. The religious groups that focus on the BoE are very, very limited, what implications that has within the dogma of respective groups should be discussed separately. The groups to whom the BoE are a dogmatically noteworthy issue cannot agree on what weight should be given to the BoE. If in the end the article’s only purpose is to highlight that within Nichiren Buddhism there is no agreement on how to treat and interpret the BoE why not elaborate on within exiting articles? It say this because as the article’s history indicates towards the weight given to the BoE as part of the Soka Gakkai dogma – there is nothing wrong with that as such, it just puzzles me that the article on SG/SGI does not underline the issue.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
A consensus seems to have been reached with five people opposing a merger and one person supporting it. I am going to remove the tag. Lmkei22 ( talk) 01:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello BrandenburgG, I am a bit concerned about your use of 100 year old sources. Anesaki was a pioneer of Buddhist studies in Japan but his writings are outdated. Ruben Habito comments: "(...) Anesaki Masaharu's 1916 work, Nichiren, the Buddhist Prophet, which portrayed Nichiren in glorious terms as embodying features of both mystic and prophet (two typologies often set in contrast in religious studies), but which based these largely on texts that later scholars (beginning with Asai Yorin) earmarked as questionable." (Ruben L. F. Habito, Reviewed Work: Nichiren, der Ausübende des Lotos-Sūtra by Yukio Matsudo. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2005), pp. 166-174, see p 171) Anesakis translation of BOE as "Saints-out-of-Earth" appears problematic. The age of a source does matter; it may be a good idea to avoid such sources. JimRenge ( talk) 12:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:AGE MATTERS, "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. (...)" ( see also WP:ONUS) Proposed changes and supplements to this policy can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.
I think the Anesaki´s translation of "Bodhisattvas of the Earth" as "Saints-out-of-Earth" has been superseded. It should be removed per MOS:NEO. Saint is not a generally accepted translation of the term Bodhisattva. JimRenge ( talk) 11:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)