This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mindstream article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article is a mess. It is mostly the work, as far as I can see, of one editor (B9_Hummingbird_Hovering) and as is typical, contains a mix of original research with 'citations' that are carefully selected to support the author's own agenda and possibly some actual, verifiable, relevant 3rd party sources. It seems to me that B9 is banking on the fact that no one will be able to understand the article, let alone verify that the plethora of 'citations' are in fact relevant. I'm at a loss about what to do about this, aside from nominating the whole wreck for deletion. Zero sharp ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"Thank you. Just please try to remember when editing that not everyone who reads the article has your level of erudition and the connections you make that may seem obvious to you will be baffling to so [sic]. Your style is a little jarring sometimes, but my goodness do you know how to reference. I'm happy to work with you as well. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)"
If the participants who do not understand this VERY intricate matter could possibly restrain themselves from editing things they do not understand or cannot relate to, would be much obliged and grateful. Hummingbird's contribution is a wisdom source for us, long time Buddhists (30+ yrs). may all be auspicious, please do NOT delete this wonderful compilation due to the fact you cannot understand it. Others can, and cherish it profoundly. Konchog Rinchen well then he should blog about it. is this an encyclopedia article or wha..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.198.118 ( talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think this article in its present state can be salvaged (ok, I don't think *I* could) -- so I'm tagging it complete rewrite. But, I welcome any contrary opinions as long as you can convince me that it *can* be made useful. PlainJain ( talk) 01:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is in serious need of editing. It's almost a book chapter-length. Can anyone tackle this and cut it down to an appropriate length? 63.143.219.45 ( talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thoroughly cleaned all the pets of one editor. The topic boils down to Yogacara, and the Tibetan (Dalai Lama's?) belief in an ever-existing mind or consciousness. Here's the extended version before clean-up. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I am more familiar with viññāna-sota in Pali than Citta-saṃtāna in Sankrit, but is there any overlap here? It may be helpful to check whether there are possibilities to integrate some parts of the section Stream_of_consciousness_(psychology)#Buddhism into this article. There is so much conceptual overlap, that I am even thinking whether merger is an option.-- S Khemadhammo ( talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Remember now. Harm none. Have fun. All are one. Forever it runs. Speak of this none, but act upon. Remembrance done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C036:B800:B005:D6F2:EC72:F6B4 ( talk) 15:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mindstream article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article is a mess. It is mostly the work, as far as I can see, of one editor (B9_Hummingbird_Hovering) and as is typical, contains a mix of original research with 'citations' that are carefully selected to support the author's own agenda and possibly some actual, verifiable, relevant 3rd party sources. It seems to me that B9 is banking on the fact that no one will be able to understand the article, let alone verify that the plethora of 'citations' are in fact relevant. I'm at a loss about what to do about this, aside from nominating the whole wreck for deletion. Zero sharp ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"Thank you. Just please try to remember when editing that not everyone who reads the article has your level of erudition and the connections you make that may seem obvious to you will be baffling to so [sic]. Your style is a little jarring sometimes, but my goodness do you know how to reference. I'm happy to work with you as well. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)"
If the participants who do not understand this VERY intricate matter could possibly restrain themselves from editing things they do not understand or cannot relate to, would be much obliged and grateful. Hummingbird's contribution is a wisdom source for us, long time Buddhists (30+ yrs). may all be auspicious, please do NOT delete this wonderful compilation due to the fact you cannot understand it. Others can, and cherish it profoundly. Konchog Rinchen well then he should blog about it. is this an encyclopedia article or wha..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.198.118 ( talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think this article in its present state can be salvaged (ok, I don't think *I* could) -- so I'm tagging it complete rewrite. But, I welcome any contrary opinions as long as you can convince me that it *can* be made useful. PlainJain ( talk) 01:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is in serious need of editing. It's almost a book chapter-length. Can anyone tackle this and cut it down to an appropriate length? 63.143.219.45 ( talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thoroughly cleaned all the pets of one editor. The topic boils down to Yogacara, and the Tibetan (Dalai Lama's?) belief in an ever-existing mind or consciousness. Here's the extended version before clean-up. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I am more familiar with viññāna-sota in Pali than Citta-saṃtāna in Sankrit, but is there any overlap here? It may be helpful to check whether there are possibilities to integrate some parts of the section Stream_of_consciousness_(psychology)#Buddhism into this article. There is so much conceptual overlap, that I am even thinking whether merger is an option.-- S Khemadhammo ( talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Remember now. Harm none. Have fun. All are one. Forever it runs. Speak of this none, but act upon. Remembrance done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C036:B800:B005:D6F2:EC72:F6B4 ( talk) 15:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)