Wikipedia

User talk:Farang Rak Tham/Buddhism-related articles

< User talk:Farang Rak Tham
Latest comment: 7 years ago by SMcCandlish in topic Guideline content problems

Can Buddhist teachers be used as sources in Wikipedia?

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a topic that has been going on for quite a while:

The debate seems to have reached a conclusion here:

My interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that Dharma books from Buddhist teachers are often not analytical, secondary sources on Buddhism. They often do not show much reflection from an outsider's perspective. Furthermore, Dharma books do usually not provide enough context: they may state that Ven. A or B taught this or that, but they do not explain why he taught that, in response to what that teaching was developed and how this teaching is applied in Buddhist communities in daily life. This is the difference between a primary and secondary source approach of Buddhism.

I do think that these sources should be recognized as reliable and secondary:

  • scholars who are Buddhists, but whose work is published in a publication which is peer-reviewed by scholars, such as the Sri Lankan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, and, at least partly, the research of Bhikkhu Analayo. You might also raise the example of the proponents of Critical Buddhism, a highly critical approach of two Japanese scholars, that came from a Buddhist University.
  • opinions given on translation by translators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, which have been recognized by reliable publishers (B Bodhi's works were also distributed by the Pali Text Society).
  • It should be noted that many Buddhist Studies or Asian Studies scholars—whether Western or Eastern—are also practicing Buddhists, so the contradiction "Western scholars–Asian teachers" often raised in Buddhism Wikipedia articles is really moot.

I do not think that Buddhist practitioners should take Wikipedia policies as offensive, since an encyclopedia is per definition a summary of scholarly writing, not a stage for Buddhist teaching, and Buddhist teachers are often quoted by scholars as primary sources anyway. Besides, Buddhist teachers have their own edifying role to play in society, as a teacher in an educative or religious setting, which has a different aim and purpose than an encyclopedia, and at that, often a more noble aim.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Farang Rak Tham (talk • contribs)

I like this comment of you:

Dharma books do usually not provide enough context: they may state that Ven. A or B taught this or that, but they do not explain why he taught that, in response to what that teaching was developed and how this teaching is applied in Buddhist communities in daily life. This is the difference between a primary and secondary source approach of Buddhism.

It's not only "the difference between a primary and secondary source approach of Buddhism," it's also the difference between a religious text and a (western-style) encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a manual of faith, but an encyclopedia. readers who prefer religious texts can be guided to relevant websites and publications for texts of their appetite. Wikipedia offers a critical and '"scpetical," yet neutral approach.
And "the contradiction "Western scholars–Asian teachers"" often seems to be used to push one's preferred Buddhist teachers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Joshua Jonathan. And thanks for your input on the policy. You have been on the English Wikipedia for longer than me, so I welcome your advice and input.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Relevant RfCs and other discussions to integrate in article

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

More on reliable or secondary sources

edit

Use of honorifics

edit

Transliteration, Sanskrit vs. Pali

edit

Mythology category

edit

Layout

edit

Comments are welcome

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Okay, based on discussion and RfCs that i could find, I have made the first write-up for a policy proposal about articles on Buddhism. I welcome your input, Joshua Jonathan, JimRenge, ZuluPapa5, Ms Sarah Welch, Gorthian, Skysmith, Worldbruce, Fowler&fowler and VictoriaGrayson.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I should also include 20040302 because he/she was the first to propose to write a policy like this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

At least four sections doesn't belong here; one is fixable

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

The following applies to the stated goal of this page eventually becoming WP:Manual of Style/Buddhism-related topics. That won't happen if it contains non-MoS material.

The "Use of reliable sources" section has nothing to do with style and is not MoS material. This should be in a section at the wikiproject page or a subpage at that project, maybe WP:WikiProject Buddhism/Sourcing. There's also a serious error in it. This is a false statement: "A secondary source means a source that is written in a way that reflects outside, usually professional conventions, such as journalistic or academic writing." That isn't even necessarily an incidental feature of a secondary source, though it applies to most of them. See WP:SECONDARY (for WP's internal definition) and Secondary source (for general definitions). The short version is that, in general, a secondary source is one that "processes" previously published material and does something new with it (what Wikipedia calls analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and/or synthesis) without just regurgitating it in summary form (that's what a tertiary source does), and is done by someone competent to actually perform this work. WP more specifically expects two things: editorial review of some kind (a self-published blog or monograph doesn't count – that's a primary source and often though not always impermissible), and must come from a reputable publisher (these are really two sides of the same coin – to be published by Oxford University Press, or The New York Times, you'll be subject to editorial review and fact-checking; if you're using some no-name publisher who just prints what you send them, it doesn't matter if your Aunt Jo the waitress edited your manuscript first because that's not meaningful editorial review – it doesn't magically make your book a secondary source in WP's meaning of the term).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I was aware of those policies, but it seems I missed the mark.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A minor issue is that singling out two publisher by name as unreliable is problematic and is likely to trigger objections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Problematic wasn't the intention, but anyway, naming examples may not be required.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The very lead section of the page is way, way off-target and makes the problem clear: "Writing on Buddhism-related articles at Wikipedia frequently leads to discussions on what constitutes secondary sources, reliable sources, or original research. This guideline offers instruction and advice on these and related problems." None of that is what a WP:Manual of Style subpage does.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The next problem section is the "Biographies part of WikiProject Buddhism" one. Not related in any way to MoS concerns, and MoS (or any other site-wide guidelines) have nothing in particular to do with wikiprojects after they become part of MoS or otherwise become guidelines (it's a WP:CONLEVEL policy issue). A few narrowly topical MoS pages that no one pays attention to still say something (wrong) about wikiprojects, e.g. "This is the style guideline of WikiProject [Whatever]", but such a claim is no longer a true statement if its a guideline (guidelines are for and edited by the entire community). We've been hunting down such statements and expunging them (when we get around to it) from MoS topical pages. If a wikiproject wants to continue exerting a lot of control over such a page, then it should not seek to have it be part of MoS. If that's the case here, this page should be at WP:WikiProject Buddhism/Style advice, tagged with {{WikiProject style advice}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can't follow everything you are saying here, but I understand that it is not MOS material.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Right; it belongs at the wikiproject's page, as it's about what the project considers to be within it's scope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

PS: "is not enough for the article to be included in the WikiProject Buddhism" doesn't really make sense. What was meant was something like "is not enough for the article's talk page to be tagged with {{WikiProject Buddhism}} (and thus categorized as within the wikiproject's scope)". No matter how it's phrased, that is 100% just wikiproject preferences, so it belongs at the wikiproject's own page, in the "Scope" section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A fourth section that doesn't fit is "Article categories". Categorization isn't part of MoS, and this should just be a line-item at the wikiproject page somewhere. An alternative would be to generalize this section beyond categories, and I would definitely advise that; this really has nothing to do with categories in particular at all, but is about misapplication of "myth[ology|ological]" and "legend[ary]". These terms should not be applied willy-nilly in article text to anythiny, so the fact that they shouldn't be with categories is an afterthought, though it could be mentioned in passing. MoS mentions categorization here and there (inasmuch as a general MoS rule may apply to a category and there might have been doubt about something); but MoS doesn't set out rules specifically about categorization; it's just out-of-scope.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Guideline content problems

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
  1. "An exception to this would be the word used for the Buddhist teaching (Sanskrit: Dharma, Pali: Dhamma), to distinguish this from the usage of dhamma for 'mental qualities' and other meanings." – This just isn't right. There's really no such thing as a wikiproject making up an "exception" to site-wide rules (policies or guidelines). What this is, is an example of a proper name being distinguished from a common noun that shares the same name. And "for the Buddhist teaching" doesn't seem to parse right. Teaching of what? There must be a better way to word this. For starter, change to "An example of this is ...", and make the rest of it a little clearer to non-Buddhists. I took a stab at rewriting that, but don't know what to use in place of "teaching".
Okay, fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
  1. "Use of honorifics for Buddhist clergy and teachers" section: It is presently suggesting to use honorifics for (e.g.) Thai subjects because they might not use their family name in daily life. This is not really a Wikipedia rationale (though it is a correct observation). We need to clarify this with something like: "An honorific can be used if the subject's article is at a title that uses one; to avoid repetition of a particularly long family name, after first occurrence in the context; or to disambiguate between two persons with the same given name mentioned in the same context. Try to rewrite to avoid the need to use an honorific may imply special treatment of the subject by Wikipedia." We shouldn't permit it otherwise. Even with a clarification like this, people may object to it. If free rein is given to anyone to use honorifics at will in Buddhism-related articles, this will inevitably lead to sporadic demands for honorifics in all sorts of other topics, because one camp of editors (wikiproject, etc.) gets very upset when "we" don't get to do something but "they" do. This kind of thing can cause severe and tendentious disruption, and is why we're so adamant that no topic area gets some kind of variance that some one can mistake for favoritism. It has to be grounded in practical Wikipedia-internal editing concerns that can't really be worked around – not preference of the subject or of editors focused on the subject.
I see. But it would seem that there are already allowances for Burmese names at WP:BURMESE. Is Burma the only country that would justify such guidelines?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
  1. Most of the rest I saw, I just fixed.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the comments, and for taking a good look at the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
SMcCandlish, could you expand on A person of any religion can write such [secondary, reliable] sources. You have tagged this as questionable.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Woops, the template was one sentence too far to the right. The material in question (mis-definition of what secondary source means) is already covered in detail above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Never mind that, and thanks for clarifying. In retrospect, it seems to me there is not enough material to draft a MOS project page, so I will see if I can add this page as a set of guidelines at the Buddhism WikiProject. Perhaps someone will respond there in a few years or so. Anyway, thanks for your help, SMcCandlish, as I have learned a lot from your suggestions!~--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Most welcome.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Farang_Rak_Tham/Buddhism-related_articles&oldid=1140619396"