Talk:Buddhist Peace Fellowship

Expansion request
I have compiled a rather long list of reference materials which can be used to further expand the article. There is enough coverage on the BPF out there that this article could achieve featured article status someday with the dedication and effort. I am calling on interested parties to help expand this article to help it along. (Mind meal (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Criticism
I have removed the following text from the article.

"Due to its lack of a centralized leadership, the Buddhist Peace Fellowship has had trouble developing a "unifying strategy for social change." Another apparent issue involves its "failure to develop an adequate, in-depth social analysis to underpin its work.""

Both sentences have the same reference, Jones, Ken (2003). The New Social Face of Buddhism: A Call to Action. pp. 201–202. I own this book. Jones says "The BPF is the largest and most effective of the engaged Buddhist networks" and that it has been "indispensable in establishing socially engaged Buddhism as a legitimate and well-articulated presence". These are on the same pages, 201-202. It does further note "one of its limitations appears to be its failure to develop an adequate in-depth analysis to underpin its work." Leaving out the "appears to be" changes things as Jones wasn't stating this as empirical fact. Also, having one source for an entire criticism section is undue weight. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How about addressing some of the other issues, like the fact the the Buddhist AIDS org is no longer in existence? Your focus is oddly POV. Ogress 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand your question. The removed text didn't mention a Buddhist AIDS org so I don't know what you mean. I don't have a POV focus. I don't think two sentences (abridged ones, at that) from a single source should be used to create a "criticism" section. If you can find other sources with valid criticisms then that would be another thing entirely but this is clearly undue weight given to a single source (which in truth wasn't really critical at all). Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)