This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have removed the section "The Buddha's first discourse" and replaced this with the section "Within the discourses".
Regarding the old section "The Buddha's first discourse" that I just removed:
I added a section about the western perception of the Four Noble Truths and about other Buddhist schools on the subject. I think it is importnat to be aware about diverse views on the subject and provide references for further knowledge or academic exchange. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 04:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism
Hi Jonathan, I hope you are well. I noticed that you added a new reference to the article on the FNT here: Four_Noble_Truths#First_truth:_dukkha
The complete reference is: Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism, p.57 Kumar Rantan and B. Rao, Discovery Publishing House, ISBN 81-7141-653-5
Could you possibly provide the full quote that you are referring to in this reference? I'll try and work the quote in to a footnote if possible. The text itself is very expensive to purchase in the U.S.
Best regards, Dorje108 ( talk) 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If his fourth Noble Truths in brief are;
1.There is Misery & Sorrow in this World 2.The cause of misery & Sorrow is desire 3.The Misery & Sorrow can be removed by removing desire 4.The desire can be removed by following the Eightfold Path.
There is Misery & Sorrow in this World I agree,The cause of misery & Sorrow is desire also agree,The Misery & Sorrow can be removed by removing desire-okay But the desire can be removed by following the Eightfold Path!??
I am asking If we want to do a thing we should have a desire to do it! then in the 3rd Truth which says remove your desires and the last says desire can be removed by following the Eightfold Path, if the desire is removed in the 3rd Truth then how can we desire to follow Eightfold Path in the 4th Truth?
then you should have the desire to follow the Eightfold Path to remove the desire- it's contradicting, isn't it? Lets Talk-- Azreenm ( talk) 18:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azreenm ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The consequent translation of "samudaya" as "origin" hides the ambiguity of the term. Also, the consequent citation of a host of (modern) authors who state that the the four noble truths are the quintessence of Buddhism, is a subtle form of WP:OR. The 4NB are one of the forms in which the Buddhist teachings are expressed, but by no means the only one. and they are actuaaly quite ambiguous. MN36:42-43 shows this clearly: the 4NT are mentioned here together with a similar sequence for "the taints". And Bucknell (1984) shows convincingly that the 8-fold path, which is mentioned as the 4th NT, is a variation of a broader sequence. Various terms seem to be used synonymously, apparently as a result of redaction. This ambiguity should be shown in the article, instead of the harmonisation which has been taking place. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Anderson (1999) p.79:
Anderson (1999) p.79:
Anderson (1999) p.80 (emphasis mine):
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan, I am repeating your comments here so that I can respond as needed.
According to whom? What sources? Most sources that I have checked (and that I have cited in the notes) use the term "origin". That doesn't imply that "origin" is the only suitable translation for the samudaya. But it is the most commonly used term in reliable sources, and therefore the most appropriate choice. - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
How is it that citing a host of reliable secondary sources is Original Research? You seem to be implying that "modern" authors are not reliable, which is an unsupportable position. - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The article does not state or imply that this is the only way to present the teachings. But it is the most often cited "framework". How many sources do you need to accept this? Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You must be kidding? According to whom? Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, interpreting primary sources is considered original research. Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. Seems like an interesting secondary point, but hardly the main point in an article on the Four Noble Truths. I make this assertion having consulted dozens of secondary sources (and cited those sources within the article). - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
What ambiguity? What harmonization? - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I will respond to your other comments when I have time. Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dorje108. In response to your request for some explanations:
What's lacking is the interchangeability; for example MN72:15 gives only the first three, and omits the path. SN35 gives repetitive lists of "arising and ceasing". The four truths summarize and symbolise these lists, as pointers or summaries of Gotama's teachings. That's relevant information, definitely more crucial than all the different translations.
Best reagrds, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This section misses the point of "substitution": "Dukkha" is a short term for the "clinging-aggregates", that is, the five samskaras and the clinging they give rise too. The Samyuta Nikaya gives an extended overview of the six sense-bases, how they give rise to clinging, and hot this clinging is to be ceased. This is examplary of the Sutta Nipata: a list may include a term that refers to a longer list, and this longer list may incude a term that refers back to the first list. The section now focuses on the meaning of "dukkha", whereas this reference to the samskaras as the base for clinging is omitted. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice quote:
If the Wiki-article could answer that question... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. A lot of them could be moved to WikiQuotes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it depends on the type of article that we're trying to create in editing. Convenience also plays a large factor; typically, readers don't want to track down a book, a page number and a line where something is being said. I agree where there would be such a small effect if we were to rephrase something in trying to not be plagiarizing. The presentation of information is best kept thorough and simple. A lot of quotes isn't a bad thing; we're not trying to fill space for nothing. We are filling a page with relevant information regarding a topic. In the case of the Noble Truths, where a large consensus is held throughout multiple authors, using anything but a quote seems almost insulting. Calling something arbitrary makes the phrase arbitrary; it doesn't actually matter, in that we're aiming for a single effect. That effect is to display information and be an encyclopedia. Complete turing ( talk) 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to say - the discussion above about replacing quotes by paraphrases is by no means enough to conclude that this article is better with paraphrases.
We had two editors in favour of quotes and two votes in favour of paraphrase and only four editors commented so far. And none of the editors so far has conceded that the opposing view is correct.
For a major decision like that, about an article that is surely one of the top most important articles on Buddhism in wikipedia, then we definitely need a Request for Comment.
A RfC lasts for 30 days, giving everyone a chance to vote and comment and give the matter considered attention. And has a discussion section as well.
For difficult decisions like this, then often you need multiple RfCs. And - I think the discussion in this case would probably be concluded with the outcome of "no concensus" in which case the default would be to keep to the original version of the article.
And typically the article would be left in its original format until the conclusion of the RfC.
So, if I understand how this policy works, do correct me if I am wrong - we should restore to the version with the quotes first. And do an RfC. And if the outcome is no consensus, should keep the original format with quotes.
Robert Walker ( talk) 14:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity
"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim!"
One of the advantages of quotes is that they are views expressed by particular scholars or authors. And you can go to their books and works to find out more. And - they are secondary sources, the sutras are the primary sources. So totally appropriate for this.
While paraphrases are not "views from nowhere" but are the expression of the understanding of some wikipedia editor. And you can't go to find out more about their works on the subject.
So - well my own view on this matter - particularly in cases of philosophy and religious exogesis, I think quotes are essential. You know where you are with a quote.
At any rate if you do paraphrase you have to be very careful to avoid this trap of a "view from nowhere" which is so easy to fall into in articles on Buddhism. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Limited quotation from non-free copyrighted sources is allowed, as discussed in Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline.
"Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. Examples may include statements made by a person discussed in the article, brief excerpts from a book described in the article, or significant opinions about the subject of the article.
Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.
Articles or sections about a short fair-use sacred idea, such as the golden rule, typically both discuss and quote it. If different expressions of it are held sacred in different traditions, this may involve a list of quotes to avoid giving any one WP:UNDUE weight.
Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".
While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit.
Any reason for moving them to notes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Four_Noble_Truths&oldid=630097157#Sixteen_characteristics)? Mahayana is the largest Buddhist tradition, is there any problem if I move them back? Ovi 1 ( talk) 12:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I've changed
into
I've changed the accompanying note from
into
and
My reasons:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved a quote from Rupert Gethin out of the note into the main text, paraphrased it, and added the passage from MN22:
What Gethin says here is basically different from the introducing sentence in the note:
Gethin says that "suffering and the cessation of suffering" is the basic orientation of Buddhism, not that the four truths were taught repeatedly throughout the Buddha's life, nor that they are the essence of Buddhism. What's more, Gethin has taken one sentence out of its context:
So, we have a statement from the sutras that the Buddha did not teach "the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being," but "stress and the cessation of stress." The last part is presented by Gethin as the basic orientation of Buddhism. And that statement is presented as a reference for the statement that the four truths were repeatedly taught by the buddha troughout his lifetime. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Throughout the years, readers have complained that they don't understand what the four truths are, when only the names of the four truths are given:
I've simplified the lead; maybe we can skip the rest of the article now, or move it into one big note with subnotes? ;) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved this short list downwards, to the "Understanding in the Buddhist tradition". It does not give additional information to the long version from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, but may serve as an intro to the "Buddhist understanding" section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This section is way too long, and technical, for the start of the article. It fits better later on, with a better explanantion of the collections of terms in these expanded decsriptions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Paul Williams make clear that several translations are possible. The explanantion by Geshe Tashi Tsering is somewhat limited, ignoring the various possible translations or interpretations. This becomes clearer when first the Williams-stement is given. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Especially in the extended description of the third truth, descriptions of psychological dukkka are given, dukkha-dukkhata. This is misleading; it's a modern interpretation, which emphasizes the ending of concrete pain, instead of the ending of samsara. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC by Dorje108 states that:
"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
Robert Walker ( talk) 07:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This is on a point of procedure really, as I haven't been following this article as I have Karma in Buddhism.
I'd like to point out how extensive these changes are, done rapidly without much consultation on the talk page first. It is essentially a different article now.
Diff of the two versions of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305
This same editor has also made similarly extensive changes to Karma in Buddhism = and in that case, with no prior discussion at all on the talk page.
I have protested similarly on that talk page, see here: Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Summary_of_clean-up
Whether they are justified or not, the process needs to be done more slowly. Shouldn't be rushed like this, with a major article, scholarly, many citations, and then to suddenly remove many sections, move others around, change the text, basically rewrite the entire article.
I recommend that Joshua Jonathan - that you save your new version of the article, to your user space, to not lose your editing and new text - and then do the changes one at a time rather than all at once.
Because some of them may be uncontroversial. And others may be disputed. The uncontroversial ones, after discussion, could just go ahead. The disputed ones would need to be discussed first before you make the changes. And in some cases, might be that there are editors that feel strongly both ways, in favour, and against the changes. In that case a posting to the project page, or third opinion, or a Request for Comment may be appropriate.
But when you rewerite the entire article, it's not fair on other editors, leaves it impossible for them to respond in a measured way to your changes. I would also like to point out that Dorje108, who I consider to be an excellent wikipedia editor, is at least temporarily no longer editing wikipedia as a result of this edit and the other edit on Karma in Buddhism which in a short period of just three weeks removed pretty much all the work he contributed to wikipedia for the last year or so.
Do you see what I mean? If not, I wonder if we should seek guidance on this, as to what is the proper procedure in a case like this? Robert Walker ( talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Copied to
Talk:Karma in Buddhism#Wrong view of karma To be continued there
|
Robert Walker ( talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the "Conventional explanations" can be removed. They add nothing new. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've copied this paragraph from Four Noble Truths:
Interesting. If old age and death are not the result of karma, but tanha results in rebirth, then how the two of these propositions to be reconciled? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't really want to get involved here, but I keep getting mentioned. Here are my comments. I can see that there is a content dispute about this article and about Karma in Buddhism. It is my understanding that two editors have made significant changes to these articles, and that other editors are complaining about those edits. Please read dispute resolution and follow one of the dispute resolution procedures. Since there are already more than two editors, third opinion is not in order. There seem to be multiple issues, and just voting between two significantly different versions of an article is not useful, so this is not a case for a Request for Comments. I would suggest taking the dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard for assistance by a volunteer moderator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted to before Joshua Jonathan made his very significant changes. Such a large set of edits, good faith though they probably were, aren't exactly in the spirit of collaboration. Please discuss each chunk of proposed change here on Talk *before* reinstating. We're a team. Let's keep it like that. Thomask0 ( talk) 06:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Thomas0. You gave the following edit-summary:
Some comments:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
My edits were not "unilateral". They were preceded by three years of concerns with Dorje's edits, raised multiple times by multiple editors. This comment by Jim diff sums it up pretty well:
Here's a longer list of the issues that have been noticed by several editors with the edits made by Dorje, beginning in january 2012:
Explanations of my changes:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I know something about this topic and got a great deal out of the page I had not known before. Thanks to everyone who works on it.
Is there some reason the page uses three separate sets ("web," "note," and plain numbered) of footnotes? I find it fairly cumbersome and a bit distracting, and it's not a system I've seen on other WP pages, where notes to paper texts and web references are typically combined. I'm not sure I see what's gained by it, and it seems clear what is lost (readability). Given that some footnotes include internal references to other footnotes, it is an awfully complex apparatus for what is already a pretty complex topic. I've searched the archives for the page and I don't find a discussion of how it got this way. To me it would seem preferable to have a single set of numbered footnotes, similar to other WP pages. Has this been rejected here for some reason? Is it too hard at this point to merge them all together (it doesn't seem to me that it would be)? Mr H3vnu83987 ( talk) 22:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead, as edited by Pokerzen87 at 09:29, 25 April 2015 diff was well written, concise, and improves readership by eliminating one of the three listings of the Four Noble Truths (FNT) within the article before Pokerzen87's edit.
The paraphrasing of the FNT within the lead is good - it draws the reader into the article, especially since the first section is called "The four noble truths" and has within it the FNT listing (although at this time it is in the middle of the section and should probably be moved to the start of the section).
I also liked the elimination, within the lead, of the phrase "the basic orientation of Buddhism" which is repeated in the "The four noble truths" section.
In addition, I also liked Pokerzen87's appropriately mentioning that the FNT are foundations of classical Buddhism. Future development of the article should include the relevance of the FNT to contemporary Buddhism (e.g., Western and Secular Buddhism).
I felt Pokerzen87's rework of the lead was good because it avoids unnecessary repetition, improves readership, and allows for future development of the article.
I hope to reinstate Pokerzen87's edit.
PeterEdits ( talk) 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help).Copied from User talk:Helpsome#Reverted lead edits for Four Noble Truths
I thought the edit of the lead for Four Noble Truths was good. I regretted seeing it reverted by you and made reference to it in the Talk page. I believe I understand your reasoning for the revert, but I respectfully disagree and feel that reinstating the edits would improve the article and move it forward. PeterEdits ( talk) 03:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
End of copy; discussion can be continued here.
I have removed the following line from the lead:
It's still WP:UNDUE. The section in the article is trivial, consisting of one line, and an overkill of quotes:
The line in the article is also inaccurate; the Buddha is not often compared to a great physician, he is sometimes compared to a physician. It's hagiographic trivia; nice to know, but not dispelling any essential information. It only becomes relevant when the context of this comparison is being explained: why was the comparison being made, by who, when? How come that an ascetic renouncer is compared to a worldy person? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've removed a large amount of quotes from non-scholarly sources. I've also removed the following sentence:
Three sources are given for this statement, only two of them mentioning "metaphysics," both from non-scholarly sources. The status of metaphysics is a crucial issue in Buddhism; see for example the rangtong- shentong debate in Tibetan Buddhism, the metaphysics of the Buddha-nature, or the anti-metaphisics of Madhyamaka. See also Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Schayer - Precanonical Buddhism. So, to make such a statement about the "presentation" of the Buddha needs much better sourcing than this. I've also removed the second note in this, with sources on the presentation of the Buddha as a physician. the combination of the two statements in this sentence - physician and meta-physician - is WP:OR, and the sources are kind of synthetic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've merged the section on "Experiential knowledge" with the section on "Sacca" (satya); after all, that's what Gethin's quote is about. I've removed Chögyam Trungpa's quote from the notes; another fine piece of original research, in whcih the emphasis was shifted from "conceptual framework" to the modern "religious experience" framework. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be presented in a form that is very hard to understand especially for the non-practitioner? Life is suffering, Suffering is cause by desire, by understanding and mastering desire we can alleviate our suffering, the eightfold path is the guide to reducing our suffering. Anyone agree to revise the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6FC0:10:EC4B:7D73:B7EC:4514 ( talk) 05:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Lead used to be pretty essential before and provided enough content to get idea of whole article that was always huge, it takes like 5 minutes to open on my older PC. So the question is that what happened to the lead? Delibzr ( talk) 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (What happened to the sock? He was blocked indefinitely: [1], [2]. JimRenge ( talk) 22:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC))
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have removed the section "The Buddha's first discourse" and replaced this with the section "Within the discourses".
Regarding the old section "The Buddha's first discourse" that I just removed:
I added a section about the western perception of the Four Noble Truths and about other Buddhist schools on the subject. I think it is importnat to be aware about diverse views on the subject and provide references for further knowledge or academic exchange. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 04:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism
Hi Jonathan, I hope you are well. I noticed that you added a new reference to the article on the FNT here: Four_Noble_Truths#First_truth:_dukkha
The complete reference is: Dukkha: Suffering in Early Buddhism, p.57 Kumar Rantan and B. Rao, Discovery Publishing House, ISBN 81-7141-653-5
Could you possibly provide the full quote that you are referring to in this reference? I'll try and work the quote in to a footnote if possible. The text itself is very expensive to purchase in the U.S.
Best regards, Dorje108 ( talk) 23:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If his fourth Noble Truths in brief are;
1.There is Misery & Sorrow in this World 2.The cause of misery & Sorrow is desire 3.The Misery & Sorrow can be removed by removing desire 4.The desire can be removed by following the Eightfold Path.
There is Misery & Sorrow in this World I agree,The cause of misery & Sorrow is desire also agree,The Misery & Sorrow can be removed by removing desire-okay But the desire can be removed by following the Eightfold Path!??
I am asking If we want to do a thing we should have a desire to do it! then in the 3rd Truth which says remove your desires and the last says desire can be removed by following the Eightfold Path, if the desire is removed in the 3rd Truth then how can we desire to follow Eightfold Path in the 4th Truth?
then you should have the desire to follow the Eightfold Path to remove the desire- it's contradicting, isn't it? Lets Talk-- Azreenm ( talk) 18:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azreenm ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The consequent translation of "samudaya" as "origin" hides the ambiguity of the term. Also, the consequent citation of a host of (modern) authors who state that the the four noble truths are the quintessence of Buddhism, is a subtle form of WP:OR. The 4NB are one of the forms in which the Buddhist teachings are expressed, but by no means the only one. and they are actuaaly quite ambiguous. MN36:42-43 shows this clearly: the 4NT are mentioned here together with a similar sequence for "the taints". And Bucknell (1984) shows convincingly that the 8-fold path, which is mentioned as the 4th NT, is a variation of a broader sequence. Various terms seem to be used synonymously, apparently as a result of redaction. This ambiguity should be shown in the article, instead of the harmonisation which has been taking place. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Anderson (1999) p.79:
Anderson (1999) p.79:
Anderson (1999) p.80 (emphasis mine):
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan, I am repeating your comments here so that I can respond as needed.
According to whom? What sources? Most sources that I have checked (and that I have cited in the notes) use the term "origin". That doesn't imply that "origin" is the only suitable translation for the samudaya. But it is the most commonly used term in reliable sources, and therefore the most appropriate choice. - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
How is it that citing a host of reliable secondary sources is Original Research? You seem to be implying that "modern" authors are not reliable, which is an unsupportable position. - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The article does not state or imply that this is the only way to present the teachings. But it is the most often cited "framework". How many sources do you need to accept this? Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You must be kidding? According to whom? Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, interpreting primary sources is considered original research. Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. Seems like an interesting secondary point, but hardly the main point in an article on the Four Noble Truths. I make this assertion having consulted dozens of secondary sources (and cited those sources within the article). - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
What ambiguity? What harmonization? - Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I will respond to your other comments when I have time. Dorje108 ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dorje108. In response to your request for some explanations:
What's lacking is the interchangeability; for example MN72:15 gives only the first three, and omits the path. SN35 gives repetitive lists of "arising and ceasing". The four truths summarize and symbolise these lists, as pointers or summaries of Gotama's teachings. That's relevant information, definitely more crucial than all the different translations.
Best reagrds, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This section misses the point of "substitution": "Dukkha" is a short term for the "clinging-aggregates", that is, the five samskaras and the clinging they give rise too. The Samyuta Nikaya gives an extended overview of the six sense-bases, how they give rise to clinging, and hot this clinging is to be ceased. This is examplary of the Sutta Nipata: a list may include a term that refers to a longer list, and this longer list may incude a term that refers back to the first list. The section now focuses on the meaning of "dukkha", whereas this reference to the samskaras as the base for clinging is omitted. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice quote:
If the Wiki-article could answer that question... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. A lot of them could be moved to WikiQuotes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it depends on the type of article that we're trying to create in editing. Convenience also plays a large factor; typically, readers don't want to track down a book, a page number and a line where something is being said. I agree where there would be such a small effect if we were to rephrase something in trying to not be plagiarizing. The presentation of information is best kept thorough and simple. A lot of quotes isn't a bad thing; we're not trying to fill space for nothing. We are filling a page with relevant information regarding a topic. In the case of the Noble Truths, where a large consensus is held throughout multiple authors, using anything but a quote seems almost insulting. Calling something arbitrary makes the phrase arbitrary; it doesn't actually matter, in that we're aiming for a single effect. That effect is to display information and be an encyclopedia. Complete turing ( talk) 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to say - the discussion above about replacing quotes by paraphrases is by no means enough to conclude that this article is better with paraphrases.
We had two editors in favour of quotes and two votes in favour of paraphrase and only four editors commented so far. And none of the editors so far has conceded that the opposing view is correct.
For a major decision like that, about an article that is surely one of the top most important articles on Buddhism in wikipedia, then we definitely need a Request for Comment.
A RfC lasts for 30 days, giving everyone a chance to vote and comment and give the matter considered attention. And has a discussion section as well.
For difficult decisions like this, then often you need multiple RfCs. And - I think the discussion in this case would probably be concluded with the outcome of "no concensus" in which case the default would be to keep to the original version of the article.
And typically the article would be left in its original format until the conclusion of the RfC.
So, if I understand how this policy works, do correct me if I am wrong - we should restore to the version with the quotes first. And do an RfC. And if the outcome is no consensus, should keep the original format with quotes.
Robert Walker ( talk) 14:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity
"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim!"
One of the advantages of quotes is that they are views expressed by particular scholars or authors. And you can go to their books and works to find out more. And - they are secondary sources, the sutras are the primary sources. So totally appropriate for this.
While paraphrases are not "views from nowhere" but are the expression of the understanding of some wikipedia editor. And you can't go to find out more about their works on the subject.
So - well my own view on this matter - particularly in cases of philosophy and religious exogesis, I think quotes are essential. You know where you are with a quote.
At any rate if you do paraphrase you have to be very careful to avoid this trap of a "view from nowhere" which is so easy to fall into in articles on Buddhism. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Limited quotation from non-free copyrighted sources is allowed, as discussed in Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline.
"Quotation from non-free sources may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. Examples may include statements made by a person discussed in the article, brief excerpts from a book described in the article, or significant opinions about the subject of the article.
Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words.
Articles or sections about a short fair-use sacred idea, such as the golden rule, typically both discuss and quote it. If different expressions of it are held sacred in different traditions, this may involve a list of quotes to avoid giving any one WP:UNDUE weight.
Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".
While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit.
Any reason for moving them to notes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Four_Noble_Truths&oldid=630097157#Sixteen_characteristics)? Mahayana is the largest Buddhist tradition, is there any problem if I move them back? Ovi 1 ( talk) 12:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I've changed
into
I've changed the accompanying note from
into
and
My reasons:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved a quote from Rupert Gethin out of the note into the main text, paraphrased it, and added the passage from MN22:
What Gethin says here is basically different from the introducing sentence in the note:
Gethin says that "suffering and the cessation of suffering" is the basic orientation of Buddhism, not that the four truths were taught repeatedly throughout the Buddha's life, nor that they are the essence of Buddhism. What's more, Gethin has taken one sentence out of its context:
So, we have a statement from the sutras that the Buddha did not teach "the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being," but "stress and the cessation of stress." The last part is presented by Gethin as the basic orientation of Buddhism. And that statement is presented as a reference for the statement that the four truths were repeatedly taught by the buddha troughout his lifetime. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Throughout the years, readers have complained that they don't understand what the four truths are, when only the names of the four truths are given:
I've simplified the lead; maybe we can skip the rest of the article now, or move it into one big note with subnotes? ;) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved this short list downwards, to the "Understanding in the Buddhist tradition". It does not give additional information to the long version from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, but may serve as an intro to the "Buddhist understanding" section. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This section is way too long, and technical, for the start of the article. It fits better later on, with a better explanantion of the collections of terms in these expanded decsriptions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Paul Williams make clear that several translations are possible. The explanantion by Geshe Tashi Tsering is somewhat limited, ignoring the various possible translations or interpretations. This becomes clearer when first the Williams-stement is given. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Especially in the extended description of the third truth, descriptions of psychological dukkka are given, dukkha-dukkhata. This is misleading; it's a modern interpretation, which emphasizes the ending of concrete pain, instead of the ending of samsara. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC by Dorje108 states that:
"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
Robert Walker ( talk) 07:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This is on a point of procedure really, as I haven't been following this article as I have Karma in Buddhism.
I'd like to point out how extensive these changes are, done rapidly without much consultation on the talk page first. It is essentially a different article now.
Diff of the two versions of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305
This same editor has also made similarly extensive changes to Karma in Buddhism = and in that case, with no prior discussion at all on the talk page.
I have protested similarly on that talk page, see here: Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Summary_of_clean-up
Whether they are justified or not, the process needs to be done more slowly. Shouldn't be rushed like this, with a major article, scholarly, many citations, and then to suddenly remove many sections, move others around, change the text, basically rewrite the entire article.
I recommend that Joshua Jonathan - that you save your new version of the article, to your user space, to not lose your editing and new text - and then do the changes one at a time rather than all at once.
Because some of them may be uncontroversial. And others may be disputed. The uncontroversial ones, after discussion, could just go ahead. The disputed ones would need to be discussed first before you make the changes. And in some cases, might be that there are editors that feel strongly both ways, in favour, and against the changes. In that case a posting to the project page, or third opinion, or a Request for Comment may be appropriate.
But when you rewerite the entire article, it's not fair on other editors, leaves it impossible for them to respond in a measured way to your changes. I would also like to point out that Dorje108, who I consider to be an excellent wikipedia editor, is at least temporarily no longer editing wikipedia as a result of this edit and the other edit on Karma in Buddhism which in a short period of just three weeks removed pretty much all the work he contributed to wikipedia for the last year or so.
Do you see what I mean? If not, I wonder if we should seek guidance on this, as to what is the proper procedure in a case like this? Robert Walker ( talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Copied to
Talk:Karma in Buddhism#Wrong view of karma To be continued there
|
Robert Walker ( talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the "Conventional explanations" can be removed. They add nothing new. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've copied this paragraph from Four Noble Truths:
Interesting. If old age and death are not the result of karma, but tanha results in rebirth, then how the two of these propositions to be reconciled? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't really want to get involved here, but I keep getting mentioned. Here are my comments. I can see that there is a content dispute about this article and about Karma in Buddhism. It is my understanding that two editors have made significant changes to these articles, and that other editors are complaining about those edits. Please read dispute resolution and follow one of the dispute resolution procedures. Since there are already more than two editors, third opinion is not in order. There seem to be multiple issues, and just voting between two significantly different versions of an article is not useful, so this is not a case for a Request for Comments. I would suggest taking the dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard for assistance by a volunteer moderator. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted to before Joshua Jonathan made his very significant changes. Such a large set of edits, good faith though they probably were, aren't exactly in the spirit of collaboration. Please discuss each chunk of proposed change here on Talk *before* reinstating. We're a team. Let's keep it like that. Thomask0 ( talk) 06:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Thomas0. You gave the following edit-summary:
Some comments:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
My edits were not "unilateral". They were preceded by three years of concerns with Dorje's edits, raised multiple times by multiple editors. This comment by Jim diff sums it up pretty well:
Here's a longer list of the issues that have been noticed by several editors with the edits made by Dorje, beginning in january 2012:
Explanations of my changes:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I know something about this topic and got a great deal out of the page I had not known before. Thanks to everyone who works on it.
Is there some reason the page uses three separate sets ("web," "note," and plain numbered) of footnotes? I find it fairly cumbersome and a bit distracting, and it's not a system I've seen on other WP pages, where notes to paper texts and web references are typically combined. I'm not sure I see what's gained by it, and it seems clear what is lost (readability). Given that some footnotes include internal references to other footnotes, it is an awfully complex apparatus for what is already a pretty complex topic. I've searched the archives for the page and I don't find a discussion of how it got this way. To me it would seem preferable to have a single set of numbered footnotes, similar to other WP pages. Has this been rejected here for some reason? Is it too hard at this point to merge them all together (it doesn't seem to me that it would be)? Mr H3vnu83987 ( talk) 22:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead, as edited by Pokerzen87 at 09:29, 25 April 2015 diff was well written, concise, and improves readership by eliminating one of the three listings of the Four Noble Truths (FNT) within the article before Pokerzen87's edit.
The paraphrasing of the FNT within the lead is good - it draws the reader into the article, especially since the first section is called "The four noble truths" and has within it the FNT listing (although at this time it is in the middle of the section and should probably be moved to the start of the section).
I also liked the elimination, within the lead, of the phrase "the basic orientation of Buddhism" which is repeated in the "The four noble truths" section.
In addition, I also liked Pokerzen87's appropriately mentioning that the FNT are foundations of classical Buddhism. Future development of the article should include the relevance of the FNT to contemporary Buddhism (e.g., Western and Secular Buddhism).
I felt Pokerzen87's rework of the lead was good because it avoids unnecessary repetition, improves readership, and allows for future development of the article.
I hope to reinstate Pokerzen87's edit.
PeterEdits ( talk) 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help).Copied from User talk:Helpsome#Reverted lead edits for Four Noble Truths
I thought the edit of the lead for Four Noble Truths was good. I regretted seeing it reverted by you and made reference to it in the Talk page. I believe I understand your reasoning for the revert, but I respectfully disagree and feel that reinstating the edits would improve the article and move it forward. PeterEdits ( talk) 03:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
End of copy; discussion can be continued here.
I have removed the following line from the lead:
It's still WP:UNDUE. The section in the article is trivial, consisting of one line, and an overkill of quotes:
The line in the article is also inaccurate; the Buddha is not often compared to a great physician, he is sometimes compared to a physician. It's hagiographic trivia; nice to know, but not dispelling any essential information. It only becomes relevant when the context of this comparison is being explained: why was the comparison being made, by who, when? How come that an ascetic renouncer is compared to a worldy person? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've removed a large amount of quotes from non-scholarly sources. I've also removed the following sentence:
Three sources are given for this statement, only two of them mentioning "metaphysics," both from non-scholarly sources. The status of metaphysics is a crucial issue in Buddhism; see for example the rangtong- shentong debate in Tibetan Buddhism, the metaphysics of the Buddha-nature, or the anti-metaphisics of Madhyamaka. See also Pre-sectarian Buddhism#Schayer - Precanonical Buddhism. So, to make such a statement about the "presentation" of the Buddha needs much better sourcing than this. I've also removed the second note in this, with sources on the presentation of the Buddha as a physician. the combination of the two statements in this sentence - physician and meta-physician - is WP:OR, and the sources are kind of synthetic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've merged the section on "Experiential knowledge" with the section on "Sacca" (satya); after all, that's what Gethin's quote is about. I've removed Chögyam Trungpa's quote from the notes; another fine piece of original research, in whcih the emphasis was shifted from "conceptual framework" to the modern "religious experience" framework. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be presented in a form that is very hard to understand especially for the non-practitioner? Life is suffering, Suffering is cause by desire, by understanding and mastering desire we can alleviate our suffering, the eightfold path is the guide to reducing our suffering. Anyone agree to revise the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6FC0:10:EC4B:7D73:B7EC:4514 ( talk) 05:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Lead used to be pretty essential before and provided enough content to get idea of whole article that was always huge, it takes like 5 minutes to open on my older PC. So the question is that what happened to the lead? Delibzr ( talk) 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (What happened to the sock? He was blocked indefinitely: [1], [2]. JimRenge ( talk) 22:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC))
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).