Talk:Edward Conze

Sangharakshita's Great Buddhists of the Twentieth Century
Hi Shirt58, Considering that the article on Edward Conze, adapted from Sangharakshita's Great Buddhists of the Twentieth Century was used by permission, I'd like to know why the article was deleted. This article gives a much more complete picture of Conze, and as such, is of higher quality that Jayarava's article.Lodru (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Lodru. The Wikipedia rules were a lot more relaxed back in 2004 when I created the original article. I didn't have time to rewrite it in my own words and figured that was better than nothing and would attract more editors to work on it. (I hadn't reckoned on it being deleted, as he was clearly notable.) You are welcome to add material from Sangharakshita's essay with suitable attribution, but it would need to be in your own words. Thanks for wanting to improve the article--Shantavira|feed me 07:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shantavira, Thanks for the response. Do you think Sangharakshita's copyright holder would be willing to license the text under the suitably-free and compatible copyright license required by Wikipedia? I sent a message to Vishvapani a few days ago, but have not heard back yet. Any idea who I should contact? Again, thanks very much for your response. Lodru (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Lodru. Only just seen your message. The people to contact would be the publisher, Windhorse Publications (info @ windhorsepublications.com), but even if they did license the text, it might be deleted from Wikipedia per the WP:Longquote policy; it would be probably quicker and easier to simply rewrite the text in your own words.--Shantavira|feed me 10:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The copyright holder has given permission to license the original article that was deleted by user:Shirt58 at the instigation of user: Jayarava. Can someone please either take necessary action to reverse the deletion or let me know next steps? Lodru (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Lodru Even if the copyright holder has given permission (where is the evidence for that?) that copied part of Sangharakshita's book was posted as a placeholder. It was an old friend reminiscing, not an encyclopedia article. Someone has added a (too?) long quote from the ever-controversial Sangharakshita in defence of Conze. That ought to be enough. Jayarava (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Jayarava The page was taken down for copyright violation. I have addressed that issue. The copyright holder has, as I have stated, given permission (via email) to license the excerpt from Sangharakshita's essay.  Instead of deleting the so-called placeholder, it would perhaps have been more prudent of you to attempt to improve upon Sangharakshita's scholarship. Lodru (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Lodru You are free to try to improve the article in any way you see fit just as several other active editors have done. Jayarava (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Long quote
Nhlevine, your quote from Sangharakshita is too long. Please see WP:LONGQUOTE. JimRenge (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Legacy?
Under the heading Legacy are two long quotes from Sangharakshita and Ji Yun. As Sangharakshita was a personal friend of Conze's one can see how his views might be relevant, though they need to be contextualised. My friend Ji Yun has the title "Professor" but is in fact the Librarian at his religious college. He is hardly mainstream in the English speaking world because he mainly writes in Chinese. Why is Conze being defended as a religious figure? If one is going to consider his legacy then where are quotes from, for example, prominent scholars of Sanskrit or scholars of Buddhist Studies? Conze worked in Britain and America. Where are the quotes from British and American scholars? Where are the comments from his prominent former students such as Leon Hurvitz and Lewis Lancaster? Why is he defended by an old friend and an unknown librarian from Singapore? And where is the balance? For example, why is there no mention of the collapse of English language Prajñāpāramitā Studies after Conze? Why is there no objective assessment of his work - his many mistakes are documented in the sparse literature. Conze is not universally admired and the article ought to reflect this. Jayarava (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * One year after asking these questions, I have added some balance in the form of quotes from senior figures in the field of Buddhist studies which reveal that he was not some kind of affable genius. Conze's character and his work were seriously flawed on many levels. Note that Ji Yun, who as Librarian has the honorary title of "Professor", has offered to translate my recent article on Conze into Chinese so hopefully my call to reconsider his character and contribution will be more widely read, especially given the importance of Chinese language sources in this area of English Wikipedia ;-) Jayarava (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)