This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zen 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,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Zen was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Zen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Zen at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
@ 62.145.192.97: your recent edits diff diff are not an improvement, on the contrary.
The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪, Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism. [1]
References
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of The Zen Schools of Japan and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the
Zen emphasizes...sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.
There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle waywhich doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't History of Buddhism and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with
When we consider...also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per MOS:WE. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it WP:OR. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - Aoidh ( talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - Aoidh ( talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence.
i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformationno one's asking for that, but you do need to verify the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per WP:V:
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about
a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking outI would encourage you to read WP:SYNTH to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - Aoidh ( talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topicthe wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what I know, and it doesn't matter what you know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be shown via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of The Zen Schools of Japan anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - Aoidh ( talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that dhyana ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit
diff, which they think better fit[s] academic consesus
, they changed
Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. [1] [2]
into
Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. [1] [2] These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. [3] [4] [5] There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way, [6] which pointed to the practice of dhyana, [6] [7] though what that means continues to be debated academically.
References
There are also scholars ... academicallyis nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that dhyana is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is exclusive to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that
meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation(they probably also missed the explanation that Chan dhyana-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.- later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.
All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Wikipedia. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
62.145.195.155 ( talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Zen is not chinese. Whole article is as scientific as those that talk about "alternative science" in herbal ancestral studies.
Zen, Chan, Jhāna. Do you even speak and undesrtand? Listen and read? Esteban.Vicenzi ( talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Esteban.Vicenzi ( talk) 09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Zen is the Japanese understanding of Buddhism. Esteban.Vicenzi ( talk) 09:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zen 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,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Zen was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Zen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Zen at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
@ 62.145.192.97: your recent edits diff diff are not an improvement, on the contrary.
The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪, Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism. [1]
References
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of The Zen Schools of Japan and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the
Zen emphasizes...sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.
There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle waywhich doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't History of Buddhism and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with
When we consider...also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per MOS:WE. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it WP:OR. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - Aoidh ( talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - Aoidh ( talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence.
i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformationno one's asking for that, but you do need to verify the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per WP:V:
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about
a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking outI would encourage you to read WP:SYNTH to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - Aoidh ( talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topicthe wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what I know, and it doesn't matter what you know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be shown via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of The Zen Schools of Japan anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - Aoidh ( talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that dhyana ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit
diff, which they think better fit[s] academic consesus
, they changed
Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. [1] [2]
into
Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others. [1] [2] These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. [3] [4] [5] There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way, [6] which pointed to the practice of dhyana, [6] [7] though what that means continues to be debated academically.
References
There are also scholars ... academicallyis nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that dhyana is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is exclusive to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that
meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation(they probably also missed the explanation that Chan dhyana-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.- later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.
All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Wikipedia. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
62.145.195.155 ( talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Zen is not chinese. Whole article is as scientific as those that talk about "alternative science" in herbal ancestral studies.
Zen, Chan, Jhāna. Do you even speak and undesrtand? Listen and read? Esteban.Vicenzi ( talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Esteban.Vicenzi ( talk) 09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Zen is the Japanese understanding of Buddhism. Esteban.Vicenzi ( talk) 09:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)