I've added more pictures, so now all the unresolved objections have been resolved I think it can go back to here.
Ludraman |
Talk 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One of the best Wikipedia articles I have seen. Very comprehensive, and NPOV (which is something extremely important in religious articles)
Ludraman 19:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not opposed, I like the article, but I think it would benefit from at least a couple of images.
Bkonrad 21:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Images exist now.
Kingturtle 18:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I second that, and I haven't even looked at the article. Buddhism (particularly for outsiders) is recognized particularly by its many images of Buddha.
Sam Spade 01:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with ye, but it has a picture of the
Buddha, what other pictures would you have?
Ludraman |
Talk 10:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Indeed a very comprehensive and balanced article, better than many books on the market.
Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Reluctant. While it looks comprehensive I still find it a bit rough, and patchy. Most of the grossly pov stuff was been weeded out recently, but it could do with some work. I think we should wait.
mahābāla 12:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Looks really good, if somewhat too extensive and maybe too academic on details. A good NPOV writing.
Revth 06:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
YEA. Because of its emphasis on psychology and philosophy, this religious article has proved to be as unbiased as a religious article could be.
Usedbook 20:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article is not yet ready. I support this now.
Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. It is good enough. We may all have little niggles, but its a large article already, with a lot of attention going into it.
20040302 21:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've added more pictures, so now all the unresolved objections have been resolved I think it can go back to here.
Ludraman |
Talk 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One of the best Wikipedia articles I have seen. Very comprehensive, and NPOV (which is something extremely important in religious articles)
Ludraman 19:14, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not opposed, I like the article, but I think it would benefit from at least a couple of images.
Bkonrad 21:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Images exist now.
Kingturtle 18:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I second that, and I haven't even looked at the article. Buddhism (particularly for outsiders) is recognized particularly by its many images of Buddha.
Sam Spade 01:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with ye, but it has a picture of the
Buddha, what other pictures would you have?
Ludraman |
Talk 10:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Indeed a very comprehensive and balanced article, better than many books on the market.
Luis Dantas 02:20, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Reluctant. While it looks comprehensive I still find it a bit rough, and patchy. Most of the grossly pov stuff was been weeded out recently, but it could do with some work. I think we should wait.
mahābāla 12:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. Looks really good, if somewhat too extensive and maybe too academic on details. A good NPOV writing.
Revth 06:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
YEA. Because of its emphasis on psychology and philosophy, this religious article has proved to be as unbiased as a religious article could be.
Usedbook 20:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article is not yet ready. I support this now.
Kingturtle 19:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support. It is good enough. We may all have little niggles, but its a large article already, with a lot of attention going into it.
20040302 21:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)