User talk:Dwvs

Buddhism, As a student of religious systems yet an adherent to only one, when I would read your Wikipedia pages concerning various philosophies of religion and schools of thought most would be accompanied by dissenting views and texts. Usually completely differing opinions and refutations (some considered heretical to the religion) pertaining to the origins and validity major religious texts; historical information concerning the religions founder and the like would be mentioned; even if those contradictory writings, held very little historical and literary weight as to their validity. I thought this to be Wikipedia standard practice thus a fair and balanced approach, as I read about religions and philosophies of many kinds, until I read your pages on Buddhism. If I were to do a research on the validity of faiths and their pros and cons and used Wikipedia as a major source when you got to Buddhism one would find very little negative information made available or statements from other sources refuting the validity of claims historically and any mention of dissenting opinion. Is this accidental? --Dwvs (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)