Talk:Buddhism

From Wikivoyage
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Ikan Kekek in topic National Socialism or Nazism
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cities, Other destinations and See

[edit]

There was nothing listed in "Cities," so I combined that with "Other destinations." "See" really doesn't look any different. It seems to me, those should be under the subtitle of "East Asia" in "Cities and other destinations," and that "See" should either be dispensed with or treated much differently, for example by telling people what to look for in a visit to a Buddhist temple or monastery, or by describing sights in prose or both. But it strikes me that it would be helpful to explain what things like a pagoda and a stupa are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone have an opinion about this? If no-one has anything to say, I'll just plunge forward and do whatever I want when I want to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Go ahead. Travel topic articles usually require to be structured in a somewhat different manner than destination articles. For example, the Understand section is usually much more important than in destination guides, and See and Cities usually overlap even more than in country articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your input. I won't start until at least tomorrow, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cities and other destinations limits for South Asia

[edit]

Why is this hidden text at the beginning of that subsection?

"Do not change this list without discussion on the Talk page"

I can't imagine why. This is not a destination guide for the Indian Subcontinent in which the 7+2 guideline is in effect. Is there any good reason you can think of why we shouldn't delete this hidden comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

So, may I remove the hidden text? I find it oddly intimidating. Its sole purpose seems to refrain users from further editing --Gobbler (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'll remove it now, since in 3 days, no-one came by to explain why it's a good idea. Why should we limit the number of destinations? It remains open to anyone to give a good reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Of course the 7+-2 rule does not apply here, but we do need to try to limit it, as the intro of that section says, to the "most notable Buddhist sites in (each) sub-continent". Whether the ideal number is exactly the top 14 or not, I don't know, but I imagine the point of that message was that we have to draw a line somewhere or we'll end up with three giant lists which do not properly give the traveller a digestible and reasonable idea of which places are the "most notable". If you don't cap it and just let people keep adding more and more sites, pretty soon it'll have dozens of temples in China and Thailand and India, all 88 of the top temples in Japan, etc. etc., and will no longer be usefully as an overview of the most notable. If you don't want to draw that line at having the top 14 sites per sub-continent, what do you suggest? Texugo (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I suggest waiting until there's a problem before trying to solve it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
That is fine, but you asked why we should limit the number of destinations, and there's your answer. It doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment, but I do hope not to see the list grow any further. We still need to offer a selection of the best, not a comprehensive list of all famous places. Texugo (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
You really don't want any more destinations or attractions to be listed here? Why not? No places in Tibet or Mongolia are mentioned yet! Or do you mean only South Asian places? In any case, I agree that there shouldn't literally be an unlimited number of destinations. But I don't think we're anywhere close to that point now, and therefore I see no good reason to limit the number of destinations now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I was only talking about the South Asia list. Seems like 14-15 would be a good place to cap it. Texugo (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't have any strong feelings about that. If the list becomes longer than 20 or so, we could always divide it by nation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
If we were going to go that far, we'd end up with 20+ separate lists and a potential for literally hundreds of listings. Are we trying to make an overview of what's notable from a general perspective, or a lengthy directory? I'd suggest the former would be far more useful for the traveller. The comprehensive lists might better belong in some kind of "Buddhism in X Country" article, if anywhere. Texugo (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
They can be spun off from here if things go that far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Since a fair number of frequent editors now have this article on their watchlist, I'd suggest removing the hidden text and only replacing it if the list becomes too undifferentiated and unwieldy. 115.135.102.228 23:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I already deleted the hidden text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
The intention of the list is to cover the most notable Buddhist sites in each sub-continent. However, it may be argued that the selection of the sites is highly questionable. For example, the list does not consider several noteworthy sites as Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Somapura Mahavihara, listed by the UNESCO as places of outstanding cultural importance. Looking forward to your advices and suggestions on this topic. --Gobbler (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I trust your judgment. Plunge forward and edit as you see fit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I dunno. Given the above discussion, I think it might be better for us to have a discussion (in a separate thread below, preferably), about how many and which sites should go in each list. Texugo (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Is it that you disagree with adding the UNESCO-listed sites Gobbler mentions, or that you'd want to insist that other sites be de-listed first? Adding 3 (or even 7 or 10) more sites in South Asia won't break the site. As I said, if the listings get too numerous, they can be spun off to separate articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ashoka's missions

[edit]

Something goes wrong in this statement: "as he is known to have sent Buddhist missionaries to Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, China, Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Greece, Italy and Turkey". I'll check up on my sources before making any substantive change. --Gobbler (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

My sources included w:Ashoka#Global spread of Buddhism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps an incorrect or fallacious information. This excerpt is undoubtedly more accurate and well referenced (Rock Edict Nb.13) --Gobbler (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not seeing the contradiction. The WP source you cite focuses specifically on Ashoka's relations with Greek lands, not his relations with non-Greek lands. The rock edict also refers to widespread proselytism and conversion. Is the issue that I'm using modern names for the countries? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Not at all. This is a minor issue. May I add more contents? --Gobbler (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's not a minor issue if you know it's inaccurate. If so, please correct the inaccuracies here, and also in the WP article I linked. What else do you want to add? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll correct both according to my book and that excerpt on wp. They are very similar. Ashoka says he sent his Greek spoken emissaries to 5 Hellenistic Rulers 1) Antiochos - Modern Turkey/Syria, 2) Ptolemy - Egypt, 3) Antigonos Macedonia, 4) Magas Epirus, 5) Alexander Cyrenaica. Also he sent missions to 3 rulers in the Indian subcontinent, no more. Well, I would like to add some historic contents about Thai, Chan, Zen Buddhism, Lamaism, and even more. Also I would like to create an illustrate outline of Buddhism Art. At moment I'm a little bit busy but hope to start soon. --Gobbler (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Monk and nun IDs

[edit]

I wonder if this would be useful information to help distinguish fake monks from the real ones. In some countries (at least China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Cambodia and Sri Lanka, and probably others too), all genuine Buddhist monks and nuns will have special identification documents that verify that they have been properly ordained. If you watch this video here, a former actress from Hong Kong who is a practising Buddhist herself demands this identity document from the fake monk. Being fake, he naturally could not produce the document. And even though this was filmed in London, the man is from China, and any genuine monk who was ordained in China will have that document. The dog2 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

True Buddha School Temples

[edit]

Could the following links related to the True Buddha School be included?

Thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

My 2c: no, because they aren't of relevance to travellers. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SHB2000: Could you tell the online audience on what grounds that the temples aren't relevant, and may never be relevant, to tourists? --Apisite (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Buddhist schools aren't really out of the ordinary. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It should not be included for two reasons - 1. It is not Buddhist, but a self-created religion that has randomly incorporated aspects of Buddhism, Taoism, and someone's ego. 2. It is of no interest to travellers. If the ruling goes in favor of including it, them it should be on a page of its own, not on the page that covers Buddhism. It has no lineage, and just because the founder names it 'True Buddhism' doesn't mean that it qualifies as Buddhist. SingyeDzong
I agree completely; it certainly does not belong in an article on Buddhism. We do mention some oddities — Mormons & Rastas in Christianity, the Druze in Islam, etc. — but only fairly large & significant ones. I doubt it deserves its own article. See Talk:Isha Yoga Centre for comparison; that was redirected though it does attract visitors. I'd say at most this gets an entry under Do for the region or a nearby town plus a redirect. Pashley (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000, SingyeDzong, Pashley, Ikan Kekek: Personally, I would be surprised, if the founder of the new religious movement had communicated with Plethon—supernormally, of course. --Apisite (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you ping me? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't involved in the discussion, but asking for opinions and then disregarding what's at least an emerging consensus is anti-social behavior not in keeping with the policy of every Wiki I know of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Reverting edits without explanation is disruptive. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek: To practice expressing humor. --Apisite (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Communicating with Plethon—supernormally has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha, and even suggesting that a religious leader has such powers would automatically disqualify it as being Buddhist. Schools such as the True Buddha School are two a penny in East Asia, where new religions abound, and most, like the True Buddha School are a hodgepodge of various teachings bound together by the founders egotistical desire to be the head of a movement. If a school is categorized as Buddhist it must adhere to the fundamental teachings of the Buddha, such as that All conditioned phenomena are impermanent, All phenomena are suffering, All phenomena are empty and devoid of self, Nirvana is peace. The True Buddhist School does not meet that criteria. It is a new age movement, which is fine, but it is not Buddhist, which was my point. SingyeDzong

National Socialism or Nazism

[edit]

Throwing this out for a consensus of opinion. The article originally stated the following: 'While the swastika is popularly associated with Nazism in much of the Western world'. Now, a contributor appears to have a problem with the term 'Nazi', and keeps changing it to 'National Socialism'. My objection is twofold: 1. Many people will not know what National Socialism means. 2. In the Western world, people associate the symbol with Nazism, clear and simple. Why complicate a term? Has this change been made to clarify a point that will help the reader understand the ambiguity behind the swastika, or done as part of an over zealous PC campaign to eradicate terms that some people feel may upset modern sensitivities. I don't want to start an edit war (time-consuming and creates unnecessary negative feelings), and so will accept the opinion of the majority. Thank you. SingyeDzong

I support you on this. People in Germany know what National Socialism is. People in the U.S. mostly won't know that Nazism is meant, even though Nazi is short of Nazionalsozialist in German. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sadly, the contributor is unwilling to accept this consensus, nor enter into a dialogue. Your move. Thank you. SingyeDzong
Actually, I misread his edit. He left the term Nazi once, but changed a later use to 'Worldview', which is incorrect as most Asians associate the symbol with Buddhism or Hinduism, not Nazism. The latter is the view predominately held in the West. SingyeDzong
(Don't assume the editor is a man unless you know they are.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek: Even though SingyeDzong had no idea I'm a woman, that user is fine to have used masculine pronouns per traditional, historical grammar. --Apisite (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that is problematic and is a violation of the Universal Code of Conduct. SingyeDzong, this is a warning – don't assume a person is of any gender unless they explicitly state so. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let's not be heavyhanded about this. I can't see how we would ever block a user for this kind of thing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would come as disrespecting a user's identity. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
We also wouldn't block, but defer to the UCoC committee, if that's what you were wondering, Ikan Kekek. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The only reason I could imagine for blocking is if someone repeatedly misgendered someone with obviously malicious intent. Otherwise, it's something to avoid but not something to go overboard about. And I wouldn't support siccing higher authorities on someone for a merely careless assumption. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, a single instance is passable, but we only have to do so if it's repetitive (though blocks aren't required since it is not our problem to deal with). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
+1. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nonsense! Use of he/him as inclusive (any gender) pronouns has been common usage & approved by grammarians for centuries. One reference is Oxford. There is no way it even comes close to violating the UCoC, unless perhaps when deliberately applied to a trans woman to deny her new gender.
That said, it is preferable, when the gender is unknown, to use "he or she", and better yet "singular they" which is less clumsy. Singular they has been in the language longer than singular you. It is standard, indeed strongly preferred, with an indefinite antecedent ("Has everyone got their passport?") and legitimate in cases where the gender is unknown. One reference is the AUE FAQ. Pashley (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pashley, if you want to disagree with it, don't propose a change here, bring it up with the WMF; they're the ones who've ultimately written the foundation:UCoC, not us. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, to clarify, the consensus is to continue to use the term Nazi in the context of the point raised. Thank you. SingyeDzong

@SingyeDzong, Ikan Kekek, Pashley, SHB2000: A listing of a True Buddha School temple has been added to the entry North Bend (Washington). Also, I updated my user-page in response to the cyber-quarreling. --Apisite (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Such listings have been reverted as touting. Missionary activity promoting a religion is not the function of a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Guanyin

[edit]

I'd include w:Guanyin at Buddhism#Common images and symbols. Images of her are quite common in China: I'm not sure about anywhere else. One might object that she is not exclusively Buddhist, but there are images in Buddhist temples & some consider her a Bodhisatva, specifically w:Avalokiteśvara.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Guanyin is the Bodhisattva of Compassion in the Mahayana school of Buddhism., an East Asia representation of Avalokiteśvara (in Japan she is known as Kannon). She is a Buddhist deity, though some Taiost and temples that practice local folk religions may include images of Guanyin, but nobody disputes that she is Buddhist. SingyeDzong
No objections here. Her origin is Buddhist and nobody disputes that. In any case, neither Taoism nor Buddhism demand exclusivity. The dog2 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply