Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism/Archive 4

Recent re-writes of key concepts
Fellow editor Joshua Jonathan has recently rewritten the articles on two key concepts in Buddhism (Four Noble Truths and Karma in Buddhism). We are unable to agree on the validity of his edits, so I am seeking the opinions of other editors on the matter. You can view the changes here:


 * Four Noble Truths
 * Before rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&oldid=624606929
 * Current version: Four Noble Truths
 * Karma
 * Before rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=625391227
 * Current version Karma in Buddhism

Joshua and I have both been active editors on Buddhism-related articles for several years, and we have often agreed in that past, but on the current matters we are in complete disagreement. I have no doubt that we are both editing in good faith and trying our best to improve these articles, but since we are unable to agree on a way forward with these articles, I am seeking input from other editors. Basically, we are disagreeing in the following areas:
 * Method
 * Sources
 * Use of quotes

I am creating a separate sub-section for each area to explain the disagreement and give Jonathan the opportunity to respond to each point. Following that, I will address specific points in each article (also in separate sub-sections). - Dorje108 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Method
Jonathan’s method is to quickly re-write an entire article without warning or discussion. He leaves no opportunity for other editors who have worked on the article to explain or justify the current content or structure of the article. - Dorje108 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Extensive and detailed explanations have been given on the talkpages. What's more, Dorje's WP:OVERQUOTE has been labeled as problematic by several editors at several articles, one as early as january 2012 diff, and again at 15 october 2014 diff. That's three years. Plenty of time to explain the structure or content of the articles, isn't it? I've noticed this several times yet at several places, so I may hope that this point is finally getting through.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of quotes within the article
Several editors have criticized my use of quotes in a number of articles that I have worked on, stating that the articles contain “too many quotes.” Other editors have supported way in which I have used quotes. I find the issue to be highly subjective, and I don’t think “too many quotes” is a constructive criticism. I think the focus should be whether or not a particular quote helps to improve and clarify the article; see: WP:IGNORE. For additional discussion on this topic, see Talk:Four_Noble_Truths and Talk:Four_Noble_Truths. - Dorje108 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dorje's style of editing, by piling-up quotes, has been criticised for three years already diff diff diff, almost since the start of his wiki-career, but without a change of habit. This comment says it all:
 * ''"The overuse of quotations (Quotations) was described as the basic issue of this article by @USER:Tengu800 in January 2012. Since then about 50 additional quotes have been added.
 * ''I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style" (WP:Quote)[...] JimRenge 10:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:IGNORE is not a reasonable response here.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of quotes within footnotes
Surprisingly to me, Jonathan and other editors have criticized my use of quotes within footnotes. Basically in many cases, rather than just citing a book and a page number as a reference for a point, I pulled in the whole quote that was being referred to (and added the quote within a footonote). I have done this for the sake of clarity, to avoid any confusion regarding the reference. I find it a very helpful practice and I would encourage other editors to do the same, particularly for areas where there are differing opinions and a lot of confusion. This method is intended as an aid the readers and other editors, so that they can see exactly what the authors said in their own words. You can find a bit more on this topic here: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths - Dorje108 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Four noble truths article
Basically, the version of this article that I worked on presented an explanation of the Four Noble Truths based on prominent and well-respected Buddhist writers and teachers, as well as highly regarded academics in the field. Jonathan has re-written the article to emphasize his understanding of a small group of academics.

Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Before rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&oldid=624606929
 * Current version: Four Noble Truths

Reply by JJ: I've added the following sources:

This includes Vetter and Bronkhorst; and also Anderson, who studies the development of the four truths, building on the work by Norman, Schmithausen, Bronkhorst and Gombrich. Those are scholars who do the basic research which is cited by people like Harvey, Williams and Gethin in their tertiary overviews. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically, I've reduced the over-usage of quotations, as requested by several editors, and added a section on the historical background, using Anderson's Pain and its Ending. This book has been published in the "Curzon Critical Studies in Buddhism", general editors Charles S. Prebish and Damien Keown; reprint in the "Buddhist Tardition Series", general editor Alex Wayman. That's an honour. It has been used as reference in the article on the Four Noble Truths in the MacMIllan Encyclopedia of Religion. The book builds further on, and.

The overview on modern interpretations of the truths were removed by Vic, after a discussion on Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 2. Detailed explanations can be found at the talkpage, and its archives. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Karma in Buddhism article
Again, the article was re-written to reflect Jonathan’s understanding based on selected sources:

Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Before rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=625391227
 * Current version Karma in Buddhism

Reply by JJ: Funny, "selected sources". I've added the following scholarly sources: This includes Schmithausen, Vetter, Gombrich, Bronkhorst and Buswell. Selective indeed. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here too, I've reduced the over-usage of quotations. The main problem was in the "Karmic action and result (Karmphala)" section and the "Characteristics" section, giving too much detail and quotes. These sections have been condensed in the current "Buddhist understanding of karma" section, with additional info from scholars like Gombrich. Much info was undue, and merely consisting of a short statement and a long quote. It was also bypassing the central relevance of karma: the teachings on karma are meant to awaken the desire for liberation from rebirth (or redeath). This aspect was added to the article. It is this condensation which is the main problem for Robert, but which is supported by several notable editors. The talkpage is still waiting for a discussion of concrete, specific proposals of what they would like to see re-added.

I've added a section on the development of the concept, based on Schmithausen, Vetter, Bronkhorst and Matthews. The fact that "karma" wasn't a major concept in early Buddhism is stated by multiple scholars.

The section on "Modern interpretations and controversies" was shortened; it was undue. Oh, and Robert and I had an argument of what exactly is karma: "intentions" or "action". Dorje's version had an unsophisticated accent on "action", whereas "intention" is the main factor. I've added some nuances, but I still think that the term is ambiguous, or better said, following Gombrich, a metaphor, and shouldn't be read as an "exact" or "mathematical" term. It's now translated as "intentional action", but that's still an "interpretation by translation". This is also reflected in the Vaibhāṣika interpretation, who "separated the intention from the act, regarding intention as karma proper"; and Gombrich has clearly argued that "intention" is the main factor.

More explanations can be found at Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive 1 ff. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I've explained my objections and rewrites at both pages; we started a discussion at the four truths page, but we didn't continue it. So, I wonder, why not first continue there? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding this statement: "If we follow Jonathan's logic, then the Dalai Lama is to be considered a primary source on key topics in Buddhism (even in a text that is written specifically to explain these topics for a Western audience), but an obscure academic should be considered a secondary source, and thus to be given more weight."
 * The Dalai Lama is indeed a primary source, expecially when a text is written for a large western audience;
 * "an obscure academic" - that's cheap rhetorics. If that's how you value academic research, it makes me wonder if you are actually acquainted with academic studies on Buddhism, and know what the merits of those studies are.
 * The number of believers can't be a criterium for what constitutes a WP:RS.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just thought it would help the reader to have diffs to show the extent of the rewrites by Joshua Jonathan to show his method of rapid editing of entire articles, often without any prior discussion.

For Karma in Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

For Four Noble Truths: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305


 * Be faithfull, and skip the "without prior discussion".  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've qualified that to "often without any prior discussion". In case of Karma in Buddhism there was no prior discussion at all, and you hadn't edited the article or talk page previously as a history search shows. With the other article, perhaps there was some prior discussion, but not much, and no summary of your changes, certainly not detailed explanation of what you planned to do, and no opportunity for other editors to comment on your proposals before you did them. 11:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion
This is how you ask for a clarification in a polite and conscise way, instead of filling talkpages with WP:WALLSOFTEXT; and this is how you respond then in a serious and informative way, instead of taking recourse to WP:IGNORE. I guess my point is clear by now, isn't it? And yes, I am angry. What an incredible waste of time this has been. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh boy... it seems that there are at least 5 pages more coming up. And the user has voiced that: "We probably need a new RfC anyway..." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the response, apart form TLDR by the volunteers who do the DRN-cases, will be: Dorje's style of editing, with it's selective use of sources, it's piling up of quotes, and it's OR, has been criticised for three years, to which WP:IGNORE is not an adequate response. The second response is: the talkpages are still waiting for constructive proposals for re-insertions, instead of the excessive talkpage-comments. See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Message from Lila Tretikov
I am sharing part of a message from Wikipedia Executive Director Lila Tretikov because it relates to some points in discussions that we have been having. People in the U.S. who donate to Wikipedia receive the following "Thank you" message from Lila Tretikov: https://www.tumblr.com/search/only+then+did+it+finally+strike+me+what+an+amazing+thing+wikipedia+is

Here is the relevant section (emphasis added):
 * My name is Lila Tretikov, and I’m the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Over the past year, gifts like yours powered our efforts to expand the encyclopedia in 287 languages and to make it more accessible all over the world. We strive most to impact those who would not have access to education otherwise. We bring knowledge to people like Akshaya Iyengar from Solapur, India. Growing up in this small textile manufacturing town, she used Wikipedia as her primary learning source. For students in these areas, where books are scarce but mobile Internet access exists, Wikipedia is instrumental. Akshaya went on to graduate from college in India and now works as a software engineer in the United States. She credits Wikipedia with powering half of her knowledge.

One of the explanations that Jonathan has given for removing content from an article is that the article is too long or has too many details.

For example, here (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism), Jonathan states:
 * The main problem was in the "Karmic action and result (Karmphala)" section and the "Characteristics" section, giving too much detail and quotes.

And here (Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism):
 * One quote should be enough to clarify a topic. Otherwise, there are plenty of books and online resources for the readers who want the details. This is an encyclopedia, isn't it?

I think it might be helpful to remember that many people reading these articles will not have access to the books we are citing in these articles.

It also might help to remember this point from the guidelines (WP:Content removal):
 * Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length.

In the case that an article actually is getting too long to be readable, the guidelines recommend breaking up the article. I hope these comments are helpful. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Dorje108's points- I do think that the number of quotations in some of the articles is beginning to impact readability, but I think rather than deleting or picking and choosing among sources, a better solution is to 1) Summarize each major position (I think Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana is probably sufficient for the general case- if a particular topic is of particular importance to a certain sect (e.g., meditation in the Zen tradition, anatman in the Tathagatagarbha (by way of particular contrast)) maybe add it as well. Then create a new article for that topic - maybe something like 'Buddhist Views on Blah'- and move the full collection of quotations there. I know some have objected to creating new summaries, but I think we need to distinguish between original research and synthesis- some of the latter is necessary for an encyclopedia, even if the border is inherently fuzzy. --Spasemunki (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dorje: is this your last Alamo, Dorje? I expect that Akshaya learned from real information, which provided an alternative to the ideology-driven narratives provided by Hindu religious organisations. See Hinduism and Hinduism, where I provided such real info, from scholarly sources. Be sure that Hindu-fundamentalists hate these sections. And also be sure that I took every effort to use the best scholarly source available, precisely because of the demands of those fundamentalists to "correct" this info.
 * It's typical that you again misrepresent my words; please don't do this. I've nowhere stated that those articles are too long; what I have stated is that there are persistent problems with your edits, namely WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM, and WP:SYNTHESIS. These problems have been noted repeatedly for three years, by multiple editors. When are you going to address those issues?
 * Most, if not all, of the books I'm using as sources are accessible at the web; all of them via Google, and a lot of them also as pdf's. See A handfull of leaves for a top collection of books. My edits and sources provide access to these sources, which reflect the relevant scholarly coverage of the topics. The kind of info you want to share can be found at thousands of webpages.
 * Regarding the "removal" of content: all the info is there, but shortened, and complemented with relevant info based on scholarly sources. Be sure that Lila Tretikov does appreciate my efforts.


 * @Spasemunki: creating new articles may be a good idea, but re-inserting all the quotes there re-creates the WP:QUOTEFARM problem, so that's not an option. The appropriate place for a huge collection of quotes is WikiQuote.
 * Regarding "picking among sources": it's not so hard to determine what are the best scholarly sources, which ones are less relevant, and which sources are popular publications. Be sure that people like Schmithausen, Vetter, Bronkhorst and Gombrich belong to the top. Pdf's of works by Vetter, Bronkhorst and Gombrich can also be found at the web. Read them; they're interesting, and relevant. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding this statement by Jonathan: I've nowhere stated that those articles are too long; what I have stated is that there are persistent problems with your edits... See: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths/Archive_2 - Dorje108 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, Dorje, what a dedication. Now, finally ready for this one: "what I have stated is that there are persistent problems with your edits, namely WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM, and WP:SYNTHESIS. These problems have been noted repeatedly for three years, by multiple editors. When are you going to address those issues"  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Chamtrul Rinpoche
Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, 3rd party, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. JimRenge (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone here interested in...
maybe helping me to some degree with copyediting the material from the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics onto wikisource? It is a huge work (I think a review said it was twice as many words as the later Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion), but it unfortunately for me uses a lot of non-English characters, and I have trouble even recognizing most of them, barring a few Greek. Some of that material is, clearly, dated, but for a lot of topics, particularly including what might be called religious and anthropological ones, it can provide a great deal of information which we can include here? I have been doing a little off-wiki in terms of proofreading some pages, but, unfortunatley, wikisource tends to prefer our using .djvu files as bases for indexes, and even though those files are available at archive.org and elsewhere, being the technological illiterate I am after several months I still can't get my bloody .djvu reader to work, which I would need to do to be able to upload the files. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A new article, Abbot (Buddhism)
I started this article today because the link Abbot takes you to an article which is only about abbots in Christian monasteries. As a result that article had been tagged as having a POV problem for a few years. I decided to change that by creating a new article. I am by no means an expert on abbots in Buddhism, but I made a start. I would appreciate if people would at least look over the short article and maybe add some well-sourced info as needed. Thanks very much, Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the formatting on the references and added a few more. . I will try to add more content soon. Thanks for starting the article. Helpsome (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

New article
Somebody may want to check Sanskrit Buddhist literature, article is decisive and might have missed some of the key information in terms of dating, texts, etc.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mae ji listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mae ji to be moved to Mae chee. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Buddhist Brâhmans
WikiProject Buddhism members might what to weigh in on this AfD for the newly created article Buddhist Brâhmans. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:List of Buddhist Suttas
I created an extensive list of Buddhist Suttas. The list was derived from a wide range of sources, though I only cited 2 references because they are the only online sources I could find with the actual content of the suttas. I submitted the draft article for review and it was declined as being "unsourced", despite the fact that about 90% of Wikipedia lists are "unsourced" and not contested.

The list has been resubmitted and needs reliable sources. I will add what I can, but my work schedule does not permit much time for editing these days. If someone could help me do this I would greatly appreciate and as this list would greatly enhance Wikipedia where Buddhism is concerned, I am hoping some of you would be willing to contribute. Thanks in advance.  Ormr2014 | Talk 15:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism and violence
Needs more eyes. Please, can someone check it. The article has been used mainly as a soapbox. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Kagyu Lamas
Hoping someone with relevant knowledge can help diffuse Category:Kagyu Lamas into subcategories, thanks. --Slivicon (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Patimokkha
Patimokkha is currently literally just the Patimokkha rules. Does anyone want to help write the article? It's been tagged since 2007 but it was shunted off to a dark corner of wikipedia under the ill-advised name "patimokkha in Theravada Buddhism" and Patimokkha just redirected to Prātimokṣa, so it needs help badly. Ogress smash! 20:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"King of Hell"
The usage and primary topic of "" is under discussion, see talk:King of Hell (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Page move from Songtsän Gampo > Songtsen Gampo
Talk:Songtsän Gampo is a move request, please vote.
 * "I see that there was a request for move to Songtsen Gampo, according to Wikipedia guidelines WP:UE the article Songtsen should be the preferred spelling. A look into Google Books give more results for Songtsen Gampo than Songtsän Gampo (which also gave Songtsan in the search results), therefore Songtsen Gampo is the preferred one per Wikipedia guidelines as it is the more common one.


 * "Proposal: move the page to Songtsen Gampo. THL standard, no diacritics, NGRAM says current title, "Songtsän Gampo", is not found in the literature.-Hzh (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)"

So far there there is one recuse, one against, and two move votes and it's been up since 26 June 2015. Come vote. Ogress smash! 23:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Just made a super-messy edit to an article lead -- any advice?
I just did this. The previous wording was both technically inaccurate and insufficient, but the new wording is probably unreadable. Since I wrote it it's kind of difficult to be objective (obviously it's not unreadable to me). Any thoughts on how it could be improved? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow flag GAR
Rainbow flag, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. sst✈ 13:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Soka University of America
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. BMK (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

About the lead in Buddhism and violence
The lead fails WP:LEAD, if any is interested I opened a discussion here. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Buddhist Mythology: a new article
The current article on Buddhist mythology is completely inadequate. It contains nothing on mythology proper, merely a listing of some deities and so on.

Some months ago I added to the relevant talk page a proposal for a new article that would cover the topic in a systematic way. I have now written a draft article along those lines. Since I have received no response on the Talk page I hoped I might reach some people here.

I have many limitations, of time, knowledge, and especially of resources, as I have no access to books for references. In addition, my own experience is limited so there is a bias in the examples I can give.

It is no easy matter to write such an article for Wikipedia, for the topic is one that is often treated with disdain in Buddhist and academic circles, and there are very few resources available. I've written some things, but then there's a clash of interests if I cite myself.

In addition, I have little experience writing for Wikipedia.

So I'm posting this here in the hope of finding a collaborator(s). My draft is here: User:Sujato/Buddhist mythology

Sujato (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

New Page Avasa
Avasa is a concept in Buddhism which refer to four qualities which flow out of the mind during meditation: sensuality, views, becoming and ignorance.

I'll work on the prototype in my namespace.

ItalianRake (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)ItalianRake

Infobox Buddhist temple
As per a recent TfD, Infobox Buddhist temple is being merged into Infobox religious building, a more general template. It functions pretty much the same. For cases where the parameters are not exactly identical, I've listed at User:BU Rob13/Buddhist temple merge what I plan to do with the parameters. I'm posting this here to make sure you have an opportunity to propose changes and/or object to the removal of certain pieces of information from the infobox. In particular, I propose removing the following information from the infobox. To be clear, the information would still be in the article, just not the little box at the top. An explanation of why I feel pruning these pieces of information from the infobox is included below as well. Please note that Infobox religious building doesn't currently contain the functionality to handle these parameters, and similar information is placed into the article body in articles for other religions. If anyone has any questions about how the merge will affect something or any suggestions on how to handle this in a different way, I'm all ears. In the absence of comments, I'll likely handle the merge via AWB in a week or so. ~ RobTalk 08:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mountain associated with the temple: This information is important, but probably not to a general reader. Information important only to "specialized" readers should generally be included in the article body rather than an infobox.
 * teacher/director/roshi/abbot: These people are probably best handled in the article body in the portion associated with history of the temple. My understanding is that some of these people can change quite frequently, and it's unlikely we're keeping them updated with consistency. If we focus on placing them in historical context in the body, that would make more sense and not provide out-of-date information in the infobox.
 * priest/rinpoche/reverend: Again, probably best handled in the article body. Similar reason to above.

Comment on draft
Your comments on Draft:Lhodrak Namkha Gyaltsen - The First Lelung Jedrung Reincarnation are welcomed. Please use either Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling, or use   directly in the draft. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding Banners
I have been editing some of the biographies of Tibetan Buddhists (i.e. Yeshe Tsogyal, Mandarava, Saraha, and Niguma) along with having a draft of an Tibetan Buddhist biography of Atsara Sale in for review. I note the informative banners and boxes that I see on other articles on Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism and would like to add this kind of thing to the pages of these biographies. I don't quite understand how to do it though, from a technical point of view. The one here on Padmasambhava's page is an example of what I'm considering. Does anyone else know where to find these, how to insert them, and any relevant protocol? Thanks. AD64 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in its lede?

Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification of RFC for Korean MOS in regard to romanization
Should we use McCune-Reischauer or Revised for topics relating to pre-1945 Korea? Those inclined, please contribute here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about Buddhism is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Kleshas
These articles and their redirects need to be untangled: Kleshas (Hinduism), Kleshas, and Kleshas (Buddhism). Particular attention needs to be paid to Kleshas, which used to be a disambiguation page. Right now it says The Five Poisons are five perceived threats to the stability of the rule of the Communist Party of China., with nothing about the etymology and no mention of the other articles. It seems fine to me if it's an overview or summary article instead of a dab page, but it's incomplete as it is.

The redirects to these articles seem pretty random; sorting them out might be easy for someone knowledgeable in these areas. — Gorthian (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting assessment
Dear fellow contributors,

I am requesting assessment of expanded articles on WikiProject_Buddhism/Assessment. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)