Talk:Buddhism/Archive Buddhism Policy

Beyond Charles Eliot and the 4NT
Okay I have been learning more about WP:RS, WP:V as well as WP:PSTS. In the end, it appears that we (the editors of this page and others) must have consensus over what content is considered to be a reliable source, and therefore who may be considered as authors of RS material. My opinion on this (which is relevant as a member of the editorial community - and therefore a member of any consensus-making body) is that (and possibly PJ agrees with me here) there are NO reliable sources that we can agree upon for topics with a broad and disparate scope as is found in Buddhism. I would almost suggest that we author a WP Policy for Buddhist-related articles which states as much.

The consequences of such would be that we do not author anything Buddhist-related as facts -but instead use named cites within the editorial itself to indicate who says what and where, and let the reader judge. This would entail that our arguments here (and elsewhere on Buddhism-related articles) would not completely cease -but they would be about just who's opinions are notable enough to be represented on the article. So, in my mind, one may argue that Williams (when Williams makes an opinion) could be considered MORE authoritative than Eliot regarding Mahayana Buddhism, just because he is more contemporary, but I would not necessarily discount Eliot at all, if he has something notable and interesting to say; however, I would not accept his (or anyone else's) word as fact, except for what material he writes which would be considered [WP:PS]. Likewise, articles from more recent articles of the JBE could be considered MORE authoritative than Williams, just because they are even more contemporary. I am not making that claim (I may one day); I am just using an example. At least we could then spend less time arguing over doctrinal points, and develop some form of reasonable approach to develop some form of criteria that would allow us to agree. Maybe contemporariness is not an issue - but maybe we can agree to make a decision about that one way or another. Likewise, regarding specific scholars such as Harvey - I believe he is reasonably authoritative regarding Theravada, but he is completely out of his depth regarding the Tibetan traditions. (I firmly believe that any discussion that makes claims that one group of Buddhists (such as the East Asians, Tibetans, Theravada or any other) have more sway, import, or grasp of the truth is a waste of time here. We are not here to be such judges either).

This may be considered as somewhat of a U-turn for me, but tbh I am much more interested in finding a degree of stability as well as accuracy for wp:buddhism than just in endlessly arguing. There are some very well-taught and well-learned editors here. It is a waste of everyone's time to go round in circles.

I am concerned that if we are unable to reach consensus on just who we consider to be RS (and over just what areas of Buddhism they are RS for), or at least some guidelines on how to make such a judgement as a community, then we will never find any rest regarding Buddhism-related articles.

An important aspect of these guidelines could be (as PJ suggests immediately above) that the order of articles follows a timeline, rather than following any idea of importance - I would instantly agree to that. Am I being ridiculously idealistic? (20040302 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC))


 * On the spur of the moment, 2 problems with that suggstion occur to me:


 * 1) What about the lead? You can't possibly put all views into 4 paragraphs (unless they're extremely long paragraphs of course; the guideline doesn't actually say how long a paragraph should be).
 * 2) What about the argumentum e silentio I've been mentioning a number of times in these discussions? The fact that sources say little or nothing about something can be strong evidence, but it's not verifiable in a lot of cases (how do you give the page number where a book doesn't say something?). Peter jackson (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, it's very possible that I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, so please correct if I'm wrong, but we cannot make or infer the argumentum ex silentio as that would constitute original research. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay - both are excellent questions. My answer for the first would be that the lead should reflect the content of the article. It should be a synopsis. If the article is very long, then it should probably be split out into different articles, with merely a synopsis for each of the structural elements. I get your point though - which is what do we choose to synopsise considering we must not synthesise. I think it is a question worthy of further discussion.


 * Regarding the argumentum e silentio you mention - a decision regarding that could easily form a part of the policy. I could not accept a strong argument (that omission implies a disbelief) but I can certainly accept a weak argument (that there was nothing to be said on such an issue) or a mere absence of belief (an unknowning). I expect scholars to be explicit in their disbelief. (20040302 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Here's an outline of the historical arrangement most commonly followed:


 * 1) The Buddha & his teachings [clearly distinguishing historical fact from legend & mentioning historians' disagreements]
 * 2) India
 * 3) Early Buddhism
 * 4) Mahayana
 * 5) Vajrayana/Mantrayana/Tantra
 * 6) Theravada
 * 7) East Asian Buddhism [China, Vietnam, Korea, Japan]
 * 8) Tibetan Buddhism
 * 9) Buddhism in the modern world

This is how it's arranged in the following:


 * Bechert & Gombrich, World of Buddhism
 * Robinson et al, Buddhist Religions
 * Prebish & Keown, Introducing Buddhism

And some others differ only slightly. Peter jackson (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that basic structure. Of course, we need to be careful with a whole set of things: First of all how to separate tradition from school - eg tibetan buddhist or east asian buddhist sources from mahayana, especially as there are many doctrinal distinctions as we have found out.


 * What about the issue of eg Tibetan academics as authors of texts that comment on Indian Mahayana or other Early schools? The actual subject is early (eg Nalanda) Mahayana, not Tibetan Buddhism. In fact, what of Nalanda Buddhism altogeher? Chandrakirti was NOT a Tibetan - but he post-dated the East Asian spread of Buddhism. Almost every source we have is from the Tibetan translation projects.  When we are citing commentaries on Chandrakirti, are we happy to admit Tibetan scholars as RS?  (Oxford/Cambridge and other universities do - but that doesn't mean we have to).  (20040302 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

In regards to comments made above concerning the use of older versus contemporary sources, this is in fact a criteria for evaluating sources as reliable, so it is very important to consider. Further, Eliot's comments about the "Far East" are too ambiguous for our purposes, and any judgment about Buddhism from 1935 either needs to be put into its proper chronological context or supported with additional sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me try to clarify the sorts of ways in which argumentum e silentio makes sense.


 * As I said above, if a textbook on a subject fails to mention something alleged to be a basic fact, I think that, in common sense terms, is clear proof that that author doesn't believe it to be a basic fact. So it makes sense in such a case for the claim that it is a basic fact to be presented as "according to", even if no source has yet been found explicitly disagreeing with it. Any claim that Buddhism is all about the 4 NT, or anything else, or any particular combination of things, comes under this.


 * Similarly, many sources say Buddhism is a religion, without saying anything about its also being a philosophy. In the context, you'd expect them to say so at that point if they believed it, so they don't.


 * More relevantly to the context of most of these discussions, if a source says little or nothing about something, that clearly implies they don't think it's important in their context. Policy says that things should be given prominence according to their prominence in reliable sources. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ex silentio is a fallacy, and we don't use them here. And, to create one based on something a source doesn't say constitutes original research.  I encourage you to bring this up on the original research policy page if you think it's a loophole.  It can't be done here, and any occurrence of it in the article should be removed immediately. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Argument from silence is only a proper fallacy in the context of pure logic; it is too reductive to call it a fallacy here, and can be a part of valid (abductive) reasoning. The distinction to be made (and Peter seems to have addressed this several times) is whether one can reasonably expect a source to have included the lacking information if it ahd been important to that source. The speculation necessary here is not on the same order as WP:OR, although it still rests on consensus. Reference to WP:UNDUE and WP:N has validity because those policies essentially rest on an argumentum ex silentio, although (again) of a slightly different order – i.e., if reliable sources don't raise something, we must assume as editors (even if it's not so) that it isn't important, until we've found an RS that states otherwise. /ninly(talk) 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that none of this would count as OR, because it's not a question of including statements based on such arguments. You simply apply the argument to considerations of NPOV, & particularly WP:DUE. Peter jackson (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 2004, I just registered the distinction you make between disbelief & an absence of belief. I do indeed mean the latter. If a textbook doesn't mention an alleged basic fact on the subject, that implies the author doesn't believe it's a basic fact. I agree it doesn't necessarily imply they disbelieve it. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now let me have a look at the question of interpretation raised above. This could get really complicated. For example, we were discussing above a/the Gelugpa interpretation of the Heart Sutra. Now there are about 80 surviving Chinese commentaries on the Heart (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Volume One), page 167). In that article it would be reasonable to discuss these (though practicality's another matter: few if any have been translated into any Western language). In this article, it seems to me unreasonable to discuss 80 interpretations of a single page out of 100+ volumes of Buddhist scriptures. It's necessary once again to think about relative importance of various things.


 * That being so, it's an open question whether any "native" sources are ever going to be important enough to be mentioned, bearing in mind that they are just the sources that the scholars have been studying.


 * But that still leaves the question of whether Chinese, Tibetan &c interpretations of Indian Buddhism should be mentioned in the section on the latter. My immediate reaction is to say that this would defeat the whole object of the historical arrangement. After all, pretty well everything in non-Indian Buddhism is an interpretation of Indian sources. (The only exceptions that come to mind are some of the Nyingma tantras & a few Chinese "apocryphal" texts such as the Fanwang jing.) Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the 1st 2 paras of WP:LS.


 * "The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."


 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."


 * So you need to decide what's important, "according to reliable, published sources". To anticipate the question whether Buddhist sources count here, I'd say, as above, that it probably doesn't matter. There's such an enormous quantity of Buddhist literature around that the emphases of any particular source aren't likely to make much difference, & we're not in a position to study the whole of Buddhist literature for ourselves.


 * And let me say yet again, as Viriditas doesn't seem to be getting the point: "importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" is to be established by, among other things, noting how much space they spend on things. If they say little or nothing about something then that's a prima facie case for saying they don't think it important. That particular kind of argumentum e silentio is clearly supported by the above guideline & WP:DUE. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that isn't true. I suggest you read WP:NOR very carefully.  As a core policy, it contradicts your reading of a guideline.  If the source does not explicitly say something, you cannot quote something it doesn't say to promote a POV.  Stick to the sources, and only the sources, and you'll be fine.  There's no loophole in the OR policy for you to exploit. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy (WP:DUE):


 * "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."


 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."


 * Are you claiming that the above policy does not mean that aspects of the subject should be given prominence according to "their representation in reliable sources"? Or that the absence of any mention in reliable sources suggests unimportance? Peter jackson (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, you are quoting the NPOV policy, not the OR policy. I fail to see how this separate subject has anything to do with your erroneous claim that you are free to draw conclusions that are not found in the sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Try to read what I actually say rather than attack things I haven't said. Peter jackson (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. You said: If [the sources] say little or nothing about something then that's a prima facie case for saying they don't think it important. That particular kind of argumentum e silentio is clearly supported by the above guideline & WP:DUE.  And, I repeat, Peter, the policies do not support your interpretation of the reliable sources guideline.  Your interpretation contradicts the policy against no original research.  You aren't talking about undue weight.  You were talking about making conclusions about information that does not appear in sources.  We cannot add those conclusions to this or any other article.  Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I repeat that the passage I quoted above clearly supports what you've just quoted me as saying.  I nowhere suggested adding any information on such a basis, & I said as much before. Please pay attention to what I say & stop attacking straw men. Peter jackson (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible you didn't mean what you wrote or I didn't read you correctly. However, I have previously asked you about this before, in the above discussion, and you've said that we can make conclusions about what sources don't say, which isn't true.  The undue weight provision has to do with using reliable sources to represent majority and minority opinions, not with what sources fail to report.  Perhaps you are using the example of argumentum ex silentio as a metaphor rather than literally? Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me explain yet again, then. I'm saying just 2 things:


 * 1) WP:DUE clearly implies that the absence or scarcity of mention of something in RSs should be taken into account in determining its prominence in relevant articles.
 * 2) If some RSs fail to say something in a context where one would expect them to say it if they believed it, then common sense suggests that statements of it in other RSs should be reported as "according to", not as unquestioned fact.

Do you disagree with either of those statements? Peter jackson (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with both of them. (1) My reading of WP:DUE (the part that I think you are referring to) says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." - so we can state that if no RS make an assertion about something, then neither can we.  However, if some texts make an assertion, we cannot then assume that other texts that do not mention the same assertion are either denying that assertion, or are in agreement with it either. As I said before, all we can reliably say is that such texts have nothing to say about said assertion.


 * If the article mentions that "Scholar Bob telles us 'Buddhas can be green' ", and then the article lists of a set of arbitrary RS which do not say anything on the subject then things could get out of hand.. One may argue that for an RS to be an RS, we should find at least TWO independent sources for a particular assertion.  If both Bob and Alice state that Buddhas can be green (and Bob isn't referring to Alice's work), then we could consider it fair enough to consider the text as notable.  If Bob is all on his own, then it's much harder.  The problem with THAT is that any interpretation whatsoever leads to synthesis, so identifying that two discrete sentences are 'saying the same' is some form of synthesis, unless they are precisely worded the same (which is most likely due to plagiarism rather than independent research).


 * For me, I think that this thing becomes more relevant when we look at the RL example re. the 4NT. Before my recent edit, the article flatly stated that the 4NT are that they are a preliminary teaching in Mahayana (ref from Harvey). A single counter-example (ref from Garfield) is enough to demonstrate the inefficacy of the statement, so it was rewritten to state that the 4NT are a preliminary teaching in East Asian Mahayana. The problem with that is that it ISN'T what Harvey says, but then as I said before, I am not sure about Harvey as being a RS for Mahayana Buddhism anyway- it's outside his field of specialisation. I would rate Williams more highly regarding East Asian Mahayana.


 * (2) We cannot get involved with 'expecting' an RS to say something in the context within which we would expect it. The very act of expectation is synthesis or OR. I continue to assert that we cannot use ANY RS as the basis of a statement of unquestioned fact. (20040302 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree with these concerns, but think that the contexts where such an argument would be appropriate are narrower than you are suggesting ("a set of arbitrary RS"). To extend your hypothetical example, if Scholars Bob and Alice, both specialists in Milwaukee Buddhism, mention that "Buddhas can be green", then fine. But if we then survey a dozen scholars on Memphis Buddhism and none of them mention Buddha color or Bob's or Alice's work, we may have a strong case for suggesting that Buddha color isn't important to Memphis Buddhists – it may be speculation, in fact, to suggest otherwise.
 * As for the real-life example, I don't fully understand the scholarly climate well enough to form an opinion on the above, but definitely think that the variety of characterizations of the 4NT (as suggested in the 4NT discussion above) rule out blanket statements about their importance to all of Buddhism or thier position relative to its other aspects. Such statements make better sense within narrower presentations (whether chronological or otherwise). /ninly(talk) 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

2004 says

"I disagree with both of them. (1) My reading of WP:DUE (the part that I think you are referring to) says 'Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.' - so we can state that if no RS make an assertion about something, then neither can we. However, if some texts make an assertion, we cannot then assume that other texts that do not mention the same assertion are either denying that assertion, or are in agreement with it either. As I said before, all we can reliably say is that such texts have nothing to say about said assertion."

I'm afraid you don't seem to have read what I said either. That's not disagreeing with 1. It's nothing to do with it. 1 is about the prominence given to things. Policy seems to me to imply that this is to be based on the prominence in RSs. So if a lot of RSs don't mention something at all, or spend little time on it then its prominence should be correspondingly reduced.

2004 again:

"If the article mentions that 'Scholar Bob telles us 'Buddhas can be green' ', and then the article lists of a set of arbitrary RS which do not say anything on the subject then things could get out of hand.. One may argue that for an RS to be an RS, we should find at least TWO independent sources for a particular assertion. If both Bob and Alice state that Buddhas can be green (and Bob isn't referring to Alice's work), then we could consider it fair enough to consider the text as notable.  If Bob is all on his own, then it's much harder.  The problem with THAT is that any interpretation whatsoever leads to synthesis, so identifying that two discrete sentences are 'saying the same' is some form of synthesis, unless they are precisely worded the same (which is most likely due to plagiarism rather than independent research)."

Nobody's suggesting the article should list the sources that say nothing. That might well be a rational thing to do, but I don't think it accords with WP policy. All I said on this was that such silence, in cases where one might expect something, is adequate reason for presenting something as "according to" rather than straight fact. Your suggestion of doing that with every single statement would of course make this point irrelevant, though I don't think such a blanket approach would accord with WP policy either.

As to your suggestion that you need 2 sources, I can only say that it can be hard enough finding even 1. Peter jackson (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter, I agree that attribution (according to) is good practice. If we are finished here, perhaps we should archive this discussion and get back to improving the article? Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

2004's next paragraph is on an issue of substance rather than the procedural questions we've been discussing here, so it should perhaps go to a separate section. I suggest you don't archive anything until 2004 & Ninly have said whether they want responses to their remaining comments. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've nothing more to add, and no problem with archiving this. /ninly(talk) 15:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PJ, okay maybe I misread what you were saying about WP:DUE. Your clarification is easier for me to interpret. When you say  Policy seems to me to imply that this is to be based on the prominence in RSs. So if a lot of RSs don't mention something at all, or spend little time on it then its prominence should be correspondingly reduced. I agree in principle, but not entirely. A good example is when there are a group of RS that assert a general statement, and where just one RS makes a counter-claim or demonstrates a counter-example to that general statement.  In this case, (we are talking about RS here) the relevance of that RS is made higher by the fact that it demonstrates a meta-state: either that there is a dispute, or certainly that many RS have missed something out. This is the sort of thing that you are very good at (pointing out exceptions to any general rules) so I would be surprised if you disagreed with that.


 * Eg (sorry my examples are not always good) Scholars A,B,C,D,E all say (one way or another) that Gautama Buddha died over two thousand years ago. Scholar X states that from a religious perspective Buddha did not die, and cannot die. To ignore scholar X would be a mistake, as he adds a nuance to the interpretation of the other scholars, which is well-informed. Scholar Y says that the issue of whether or not Buddha died is a debate that is grounded in faith. I would suggest that Y takes precedence, because he describes the debate that ABCDE do not mention (and may not be aware of).  Then ABCDE take precedence because they are a majority of scholars that concur - and then an attribution (according to) Y, pointing out the counter-example / caveat.


 * In my mind, demonstrating awareness of difference of opinions of a fact indicates a greater precedence regarding an issue than any scholars who take only one side, and ignore/are unaware of any alternative. Does that make sense?


 * And I am not ready to archive this. I hope to see some form of agreement regarding the manner of editing Buddhism and related articles, in order to stop endless discussions such as above. (20040302 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I think I agree with everything you've just said. What I said about reducing the prominence of something wasn't intended to mean that space was the only consideration. It's just one of the factors that have to be taken into account.


 * What you say about the Buddha's death would require interpretation of the contexts in which your imaginary scholars are writing. It's true that the traditional mainstream Mahayana view is that he didn't die but is still around. However, that doesn't count as "history". Scholars who are writing history will say he died, & wouldn't be expected to say anything else. I must admit I'm not entirely clear what WP policy on such matters is. The Resurrection is an obvious parallel, which must have been discussed at great length (no doubt making our discussions look trivial).


 * The general principle of noticing whether scholars seem to have heard about each other's ideas is one I've often thought about, though I can't remember whether I've ever explicitly mentioned it here. Peter jackson (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you don't accept Viriditas' suggestion of ending this discussion, I'll end my pause in commenting on your previous comments, which I made in deference to that proposal. Your final paragraph there:


 * For me, I think that this thing becomes more relevant when we look at the RL example re. the 4NT. Before my recent edit, the article flatly stated that the 4NT are that they are a preliminary teaching in Mahayana (ref from Harvey). A single counter-example (ref from Garfield) is enough to demonstrate the inefficacy of the statement, so it was rewritten to state that the 4NT are a preliminary teaching in East Asian Mahayana. The problem with that is that it ISN'T what Harvey says, but then as I said before, I am not sure about Harvey as being a RS for Mahayana Buddhism anyway- it's outside his field of specialisation. I would rate Williams more highly regarding East Asian Mahayana.


 * What Harvey actually says is that that's what the Lotus Sutra says. I think in the context he implies that's the Mahayana view, but I suspect that interpretation wouldn't satisfy the strict wording of WP:V. Peter jackson (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think Garfield's statement that they're essential contradicts the claim that they're preliminary. Preliminaries may be essential, or they may not. It may well be that the Tibetan tradition regards them as such, but the main East Asian traditions don't seem to. You might look at this in terms of sudden and gradual enlightenment. Or you could look at it in the context of the pervading East Asian concern with the decline of the teaching, which results in an emphasis on "simple", "easy" practices, most people being considered no longer up to the fuller ones. Pure Land is just the most radical example. Peter jackson (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * RS is a relative matter a lot of the time. Harvey is a reliable source, but Williams is more reliable on Mahayana. There's a general question here. What do you do if a specialist & a non-specialist contradict each other? Maybe the non-specialist represents the views of other specialists we haven't come across yet. Or maybe they're just wrong. Each case has to be considered carefully on its merits, but common sense suggests the benefit of any doubt should be given to inclusion, with attribution. Peter jackson (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you mention Williams, I might point out that I had a look at his Mahayana book (2nd edn) yesterday. There are only 4 refs to the 4 NT in the index, & all seem quite brief. Peter jackson (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now a comment on what Ninly says:


 * As for the real-life example, I don't fully understand the scholarly climate well enough to form an opinion on the above, but definitely think that the variety of characterizations of the 4NT (as suggested in the 4NT discussion above) rule out blanket statements about their importance to all of Buddhism or thier position relative to its other aspects. Such statements make better sense within narrower presentations (whether chronological or otherwise).


 * The problem about statements within narrow presentations is the difficulty in finding them. How many statements can any of us find about the importance of the 4 NT in the various Buddhist traditions? I really don't know how to deal with this. What we're liable to get is something like what we have: a haphazard collection of fragmentary statements, with much left unsaid because we haven't found any RSs that say it. Peter jackson (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now back to 2004's general proposal. I don't know how literally you intend this. Are you talking about an article where every sentence starts "According to" or similar? It would look rather odd. I do have a lot of sympathy on the issue, though. Peter jackson (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, outside of the last sentence, I'm pretty sure that we are at a good turning point for a new section.
 * PJ: Now back to 2004's general proposal. I don't know how literally you intend this (see next section!) 20040302 (talk)

Towards a WP:Buddhism Policy
Archived to Talk:Buddhism/Archive Buddhism_Policy and re-submitted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism


 * 1) We (the editors of Buddhism and related articles) are all acting in good faith, and are wishing to work towards authoring and maintaining exemplar articles for such articles.
 * 2) We are interested in the subject area, and are capable (at least between us) of finding and evaluating source material (when it exists) that meets our needs for the task.
 * 3) We are aware that the article(s) may never be synchronous with our personal beliefs or those of others, and must not feel disheartened by that.
 * 4) That Buddhism (or any other broad-band subject that covers hundreds of millions of peoples, thousands of years and hundreds cultures) is complex.

We also need to develop
 * 1) A means of identifying RS. Possibly even list regular RS, along with their respective domains of expertise.
 * 2) A strategy of hierachialising RS when addressing a specific topic; this isn't about who is more right, but about things like time, generality, and so on (eg see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources).
 * 3) We could divide content/subjects into HOT/WARM/COLD - according to the level of attention/disagreement they get. The purpose of this would be to require different levels of attribution for HOT subjects, and far less attribution for COLD ones. If there is no dispute about the phrase "Buddhism is a religion and philosophy", then it is COLD, and (until discussion comes along) doesn't need an attribution to it.
 * 4) The structure of the article reflects a timeline, with the earliest stuff at the top.

I have to go cook supper now.. but something that begins to go like that gives everyone a GOOD idea about what we have already developed a consensus about. IE, if we cannot develop a consensus about the article, let's first get a consensus about authoring the article! (20040302 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * The wording of your last paragraph seems to imply that you think there's already a consensus, which seems a bit premature.


 * I hope you don't mind my reformatting your remarks for clarity.


 * Your hypothetical example under 3 is counterfactual. If you ever have the time to red back over the archives of this page, you'll find that, every so often, someone turns up & vehemently insists that Buddhism isn't a religion. &, every so often, someone turns up & vehemently insists that Buddhism is a religion. It might be quite amusing if they turned up simultaneously. And so far we've found 1 living scholar who says it's a philosophy & 1 who says it's not. Everyone else just ignores the idea. Peter jackson (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the above meant to replace what you said in the previous section, or to supplement it? If the former, then I assume Viriditas can archive that. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the wording above says "Buddhism and related articles", that would make sense. Let's see what 2004 has to say. I get the impresion this is more thinking aloud than a definitive proposal. Peter jackson (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, point 4 in the 2nd list looks to be specific to this article. Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have 'flu., so I can only be brief. I will remain off until better, but don't take that as any lack of commitment. I have no problem moving the article to WikiProject Buddhism. PJ, yes my points were thinking aloud, but I am proposing an authoring policy, and as a strategy, point 4 in list 2 could be a strategy for many Buddhism articles. My belief is that if we have a consensus on policy, then endless arguments about if Buddhism is a religion and whether the 4NT are core, and whether or not Pratītyasamutpāda means everything is interconnected, and a gadzillion interpretations of emptiness, nirvana, karma, etc. could possibly dissolve. If we can find a policy that helps alleviate this, then it should be highlighted at the top of every relevant talk page. (20040302 (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, some projects use a FAQ heading with a list of the most common questions and answers. I hope you feel better soon. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 2004 means putting a link to the policy, though maybe FAQ is another possibility (in addition, or instead).


 * I suppose we'd better wait a week or 2 before moving to the project. Peter jackson (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it seem reasonable for the proposer to make the move and be available to answer queries? Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, thanks for that. Viriditas, thanks for your consoling remarks; I am already feeling much better, but not quite fully fit.  I am not actually sure how best to make the move  - I am quite happy for someone with more experience to make the move. (20040302 (talk))


 * I don't think it has to be any more formal than just copy/pasting your policy proposals and any other thoughts over at the project talk page, and getting discussion started there. Eventually, I expect we'd link a more formalized policy from the project page itself, and maybe from the talk pages of especially important articles (like this one). Feel better, 2004! /ninly(talk) 15:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)