User talk:River-kind

July 2021
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Secular Buddhism. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The external link to Nichiren Secular website have been included in the Wiki article about Secular Buddhism website for about four years. It was the product of discussions that evolved from the main talk page. The external link to the Lotus Secular Buddhism was added unilaterally last year by someone. The Lotus Secular Buddhism link wasn't working, so it was merely repaired. As far as I am aware, these two sites are unaffiliated. Before they were removed, the other external links above them were (and still are) the following:

Secular Buddhist Network (global); Secular Buddhism (Australia); Secular Buddhism (Canada); German language Secular Buddhist website; Spanish language Secular Buddhist website; Secular Buddhist Association (USA); and Secular Buddhism website (USA)

All of these are links to websites of various secular Buddhist organizations related to the emptiness tradition of Buddhism. If we delete, the Lotus/Nichiren links, Wikipedia would then be in the business of selecting which form of secular Buddhism to recognize.

Secular Buddhism is an emerging phenomenon and, in a way. it is very important for links like these to appear at the end of the article. If the links you removed cannot be reinstated, shouldn’t the others be removed as well? 2600:1700:CEF0:3B00:DCF1:929F:680E:AB7E (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't review all the links on the page, only the one that had recently been added to other pages. It could well be that other links will need to be removed once they are reviewed. (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

When we communicated a week ago, you mentioned that the other links have not been reviewed. Please let me know about your decision on this matter. As per the editing history, the Nichiren Secular external link was added on 9/11/18. I would like to reinsert it under the name of Secular Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra. Here is the link * Secular Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra River-kind (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Don't re add it, it clearly does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. - MrOllie (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your decision on the others? Would you please give me an idea when I may expect that? River-kind (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You have not responded. I presume you are refusing to discuss this matter further. You say it "clearly does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on external links." But you have not supported this conclusion with specific facts.

As I understand the rule, Wikipedia articles may include external links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as the amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

I've reviewed the website and believe it fits this description of acceptability. It's not a personal webpage, as it is not about a person or "personal," but rather fully on-topic and accurate. There's no advertising/promotion going on. The link was on the page since 9/11/18 and it was working properly before you removed it.

Here is the link at issue: Secular Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra

2600:1700:CEF0:3B00:3DD0:22A8:22F5:F3D5 (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Thankyou for the request for a Third Opinion. As I understand it, the question related to whether the link " https://sites.google.com/view/nichirensecular/home/ " should be included in the external links section of the ariticle Secular Buddhism. As mentioned above, the relevant guideline is External links, which states, in summary: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. I am of the opinion that the above link, to a Google Site which lists a number of secular Buddhist prayers without sources, expansion, analysis, or scholarly research is not meritable, barely directly relevant to the article, and its' inclusion in the article would be excessive. I am also of the view that its' inclusion in the article would likely do more to advertise the linked site, than to build on the content of the article or knowledge of the reader, and that its' inclusion in the article would therefore be in breach of the spam guideline. In summary, my firm opinion is that the link " https://sites.google.com/view/nichirensecular/home/ " should not be included in the article Secular Buddhism at this time. -- Jack Frost (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request for a Third Opinion. I believe your objections would apply equally to the other external links under the article ( Secular Buddhist Network (global); Secular Buddhism (Australia); Secular Buddhism (Canada); German language Secular Buddhist website; Spanish language Secular Buddhist website; Secular Buddhist Association (USA); and Secular Buddhism website (USA)) as well, but I would prefer not to dwell on this issue.

Would you instead consider the following link acceptable? Secular Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra. The link is now to an article on a distinct form of Secular Buddhism with citations and references. There are no prayers or advertisements to linked sites. River-kind (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , Self published papers are not usable links either, see ELNO # 11. MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

All right. I thought the prohibition against linking to unpublished articles applied to the content of the article and not external links. Also, I thought that some self-published papers are acceptable and that this particular one would fall into that exception. I'm not going to dispute this, however.

I appreciate that you addressed the issue of external links to some groups remaining, while others were eliminated. I did not know you took care of this issue before I requested the Third Opinion above. My best. River-kind (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)