Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Older discussions

Hello, I am an outside observer. As far as I can see, there is no real dispute. The claims of "Buddhist persecution" are made by Buddhist scripture.However, just about all academic sources (including eminent premier top notch Kluge Chair holding super-duper historian Romila Thapar) refute the exaggerations strongly as cited in the article. Whats more accusations of Hindu-Nationalist bias against Freedom skies are comical given that he cites Romila Thapar a know anti-Hindutva (i.e Hindu nationalism) speaker. Academic sources carry preference over religious scripture, which is invariably partisan. Can Tigeroo produce historical or scholarly narrative that supports the Buddhist claims to the letter? अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 15:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No he (tigeroo) cant. Romila Thapar is known for virulent anti-Hindu polemic under the guise of "academics". allegations of Hindutva are thrown around way too frequently on wikipedia by anti-Hindus who wish to attack Hindus for their religious beliefs.Bakaman 16:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

PK Misra and his archaelogical evidence and Marshall are cited in the text in addition to the original author, beside Elst and Thapar. Every single line in that section is cited. I just state that it is uncertain and that there is debate and this needs to be accordingly reflected. There is no mention of Hindutva, nor of Elst polemical hindutva stance. I am just acknowledging both the POV's. The dispute however seems to stretch on to other sections as well judging by the revert and I just want to resolve this amicably.--Tigeroo 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

About the issues list

Tigeroo filled the table with nine issues - thank you for that! I now realize that I may have been unrealistic in thinking the entries could remain short - especially since I also need a column for my comment. According to my plan, I should now copy Tigeroo's original list here and then go through the table to shorten it, but I now realize it won't be easy, and I probably will make mistakes. At least those mistakes will show where I misunderstand an issue. So please bear with me. Or does anybody have a better idea how to prevent the table from bursting? I would like to keep the table since it gives me a good overview. — Sebastian 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After seeing that the references from the text in the table are broken, I realize that it's probably not so good to just copy and paste text into the table. Sorry that I wasn't clear about that, I'm only learning myself. So I'll copy the content here, and it would be great if Tigeroo or anybody else could help fix the broken references. — Sebastian 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To everyone who posts or has posted issues, can you please provide context and diffs where applicable? This is obviously easier for you than for me. (Example: "Out of Context BBC Quotes": I'm afraid the name may be contentious - if the other party agreed it was out of context then this issue could probably be solved without mediation. So I wanted to change it to a name both can agree on. But it was hard to find since the text "Hinduism traditionally does not evangelize" does not occur in the current version. Thankfully, Tigeroo writes good edit summaries, so it took me only a few minutes to find the diff.) — Sebastian 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the replies in the talbe were longer than I expected I'm creating a section "Issue" below and am copying them there. I will edit the table on the project page to include only a short description of the change, and will delete all entries in the "goal" section that are no goals. (See also User talk:Tigeroo#Goals.)

In the list below, Please feel free to change the format; this is just the easiest format for me to create. We may want to allow editing what's in the tables, which would differ from usual talk pages. To keep this option, therefore, when you reply, quote from the statement and don't refer to e.g. "the second sentence" or "everything you wrote". — Sebastian 07:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues discussion

#1: Dalits @ intro

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	In the mid 20th century Ambedkar pioneered a contemporary revival primarily through a movement of mass conversions of the untouchables (or dalits), of the Indian caste system.	The mass conversion movement among the dalits in India is THE major factor driving the renewal of Buddhism in India. It needs to be mentioned to round off the article, and the source is entirely cited from a reputable encylopedic source. It is even more notable an event than the Dalai Lama's prescence in India for the renewal of Buddhism. - Tigeroo

Does this have to be in the intro? 07:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD it needs to be mentioned as it is the most important facet of an entire section. Plus style wise it neatly rounds up the intro. It is actually the most notable facet of Buddhism revival movement, so if trimmed it should probably be the only one that stays.--Tigeroo 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The emphasis needs to be placed on the original pioneer Anagarika Dharmapala in my opinion but then again, it's just my opinion. Tigeroo's very personal opinion seems to tilt towards Dr. Ambedkar. Keep opinions out of it and mention them in a chronological order. Also included in the list is His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso himself. I have been to Dharamshala, India myself and am bound to be partial to him, but then again it would be my personal opinion only. Also see that the pioneers are mentioned again here. Mentioning them twice and giving one man preference over the other two is not the solution at all. Brief mention in a chronological order should suffice. My solution is "Buddhism was virtually extinct by the end of the 19th century. In recent times, Buddhism has seen a revival in India due to the influence of Anagarika Dharmapala, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Tenzin Gyatso." _{Freedom skies| talk}  08:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This convinces me. This is the intro to an article about the decline, after all. For this issue, I suggest we simply move the sentence Tigeroo proposed to B. R. Ambedkar, where it is much more relevant. — Sebastian 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized this deletion has already been done. Generally, please don't revert edits by the other party. But in this case it's OK for the reasons given at User talk:Freedom skies#reverting other party's edits. The text has not yet been inserted in the B. R. Ambedkar intro, though. — Sebastian 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mention of the Dalia Lama, but the cited source the Webster Encylopedia no less, clearly states that Ambedkar is responsible for pioneering a mass conversion movement. This mass conversion movement is what is attributed to the renewal and spread of Buddhism in India. The currently formulation I beleive totally misses the entire mass conversion movement and it's link to the reversal of the decline that has resulted in a renewal. This is also easily verifable by the scale of the impact Ambedkar has had on the spread of renewal of Buddhism which is much more notable: "In the mid 20th century Ambedkar pioneered a contemporary revival primarily through a movement of mass conversions of the untouchables (or dalits), of the Indian caste system." More can be fleshed out in the last section on the article. My rationale on why it belongs up in the lead is that any reversals or arrestations of a decline are also notable enough to be mentioned in an article on decline.--Tigeroo 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, please edit the Revival section first. Currently, it doesn't even mention the Dalit conversion! (I won't consider this "#Acute changes", because the fact itself isn't contended; it's only how much of it should be in the intro.) Once both parties agree on that section, it should be much easier to summarize it. — Sebastian 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited it as asked. Ambedkarite Buddhism and mass conversion from the untouchable castes is itself a distinctive and quite notable phenomenon of the revival that it stands out.--Tigeroo 12:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, Tigeroo once again mention Hinduism exclusively and somehow forgot to mention Islam. I corrected that to some extent though. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind you adding that information if you can cite it. Just be careful of your edits, because they seem to make that attribution come from the source that has been cited as saying something else. If you are editing cited material be careful to check that that your edit reflects the citation, otherwise introduce a new citation instead of changing what the intial citation was about because it then makes the citations inaccurate and not useful. Ideally unless you have an issue with the way the cited material is being used in contrast to its source or contect you should leave it alone and add new material that gives a different interprestation. WP:NPOV is about giving air to all POVs not obliterating one in favor of the other.--Tigeroo 11:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Have we established the unique and pivotal role of Ambedkar now?--Tigeroo 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No we have'nt. The "revival" section does not mention the muslims. Surprisingly enough , the Maha Bodhi Society article has the same content but refers to muslim rule as well. Extensive editing is required._{Freedom skies| talk}  04:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist revival and Muslim role in the Maha Bodhi is irrelevant to this particular discussion, they are seperate discussion about a rewrite to a different section. This section is about mention of the particular role of Ambedkar. We should limit discussion in this section to if there is a specific reason having to do with why Ambedkar and Ambedkarites are not significant or distinctinve enough to merit mentioned in the intro. Discussion on the content of the Revival section can go on seperately elsewhere. The issue addressed here is the important significance of the distinctive impact Ambedkar had. I think we have established that Ambedkar's role and his impact on the revival movement of Buddhism in India is both significant and distinctive enough to merit the resolution of this issue by reinstating the above referenced statement. This fact is further corrobrated by the fact that the source of the initial statement is in itself an impartial encyclopedia and not a "dalit POV" source that has been expressed as objectionable. On the contents of the revival section I suggest we open a new dialog and resolve the specific differences to that section there.--Tigeroo 10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Buddhist revival and Muslim role in the Maha Bodhi is irrelevant to this particular discussion

Not quite, You don't get to decide what is irrelevant and what is not, Tigeroo. Arguments such as those undermine the original "equal emphasis" on all three pioneers idea.

You erased the muslim role from Maha Bodhi altogather and now the article reads like an anti Hindu POV fork, Tigeroo. Muslim role is irrelevant? Is the article titled "Role of Hinduism to the Decline of Buddhism"?

Ambedekar has been mentioned in all his strength; the Maha Bodhi and Dalai Lama need a strong mention as well.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  12:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the revival section mentioning Dalai Lama, Islam in relation to the Maha Bodhi which was deleted by Tigeroo and Islam in relation to Ambedekar. _{Freedom skies| talk}  13:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Sure Dalai Lama and Maha Bodhi can be mentioned but that is a discussion for another section. This section is about resolving if Ambedkar was role was distinctive and important enough to stand out. That's all. There is a reason this page is arranged in sections so that one issue does not derail resolving others. Let's keep from confusing things and take each item one by one.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, Your rewrite was done in the "revival" section and you took the liberty of rewriting more than Ambedekar. I expanded it with sources and you promptly erased the text, however well sourced, as it mentioned Islam. The revival section was being rewritten by you then, it's just fair that other editors also expand Dalai Lama, Maha Bodhi and Ambedekar in relation with Islam. _{Freedom skies| talk}  06:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite what???? Yes, I did but lets discuss that in the revival section, why here this section is not about that!!! This section is about adding a line about the distinctive feature about ther Ambedkarite revival.

Back to the topic by this exercise and the research I can see that Angarika is also quite distinctive in his revival of Sri Lankan Buddhist influences in India. So I am happy with the way the way lead stands and shall be satisfied with putting the sentence relating to Ambedkar in the revival section where things have been developed a bit more, rather than cluttering the opening. So I think we can say this item is closed too as I find Freedom skies changed made to be sufficient.--Tigeroo 11:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Again,

You have edited on more than Ambedekar, let's be absolutely clear about that. I edited the revival section following your edits only to have my version reverted completely. This quite simply adds to you unilaterally editing the revival section without allowing anyone else to do so, Tigeroo. The attempts unilateral editing undermine this mediation process, Tigeroo. The removal of Islam's influence from the revival section will not help either.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is off-topic from the point discussion. We can discuss it in the appropiate section. I am happy with Freedom skies editied version to the intro, so we can close this discussion. The intro is fine as it stands.--Tigeroo 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, much as I would love to close this, it was me who brought in the revival section above. Freedom skies is just doing what I asked him to do. Maybe Utcursch can bring in a new idea how to solve this. — Sebastian 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

#2: Brahmanism

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	Using Brahmanism, where appropiate as in the Sunga section.	Academic scholars use Brahmanism or even saivite sect and not Hinduism to describe the religious practices and the primacy of Brahmin priestly caste for the relgious pratices of Pusyamitra. They make a distinction that Brahamanism was primarily ritual observances where as Hinduism evolved from a syncretism of Bhaktism, Buddhism, Savism and Vaishnavism. Using hinduism here confuses the issue because Hinduism encompasses a wide set and range of practices and beliefs while historians in this instance are singling out reference to that period as a contest between one particular subset (Brahmanism) being the one in contention with Buddhism. - Tigeroo

Can you please be specific as to which instances you want to be changed? There are about 20. — Sebastian 05:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page background rationale for, specific instances when refering to a particlar time period:

1. The three sentences which cited by the Saravistada
2. "Hinduism competed with" cited by the Ashok & Akira reference

--Tigeroo 19:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can find neither "Saravistada" nor "Hinduism competed with" in the current article. If I did, I might however have a bias for Tigeroo, since he asked his question on the talk page already last December. — Sebastian 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Item 3 in the Notes is Sarvasitavada, that should take you up to the the sentences that is referenced in. The Hinduism competed sentence is also listed below as item #3.--Tigeroo 05:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the two first occurrences, only one mentions Hinduism. The third occurs below in #3, as you point out correctly. But that seems to be a contradiction: How can you be against the name Hinduism here, when you propose just this wording in #3? So is it really only about this one occurence: "a resurgence of a form of Hinduism that forced Buddhism outwards"? And what exactly do you want? → "a resurgence of a form of Brahmanism that forced Buddhism outwards" or → "a resurgence of Brahmanism that forced Buddhism outwards"? Please be specific in communicating what you want. — Sebastian 06:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo's text (intermediate headline for better editing)

My text version for clarity:

===The Sungas=== Following the Mauryans, Pusyamitra Sunga is linked in legend with the persecution of Buddhists and a resurgence of a form of Brahmanism that forced Buddhism outwards to Kashmir, Gandhara and Bactria. There is some doubt as to whether he did or did not persecute Buddhists actively.

A Buddhist tradition holds him as having taken taking steps to check the spread of Buddhism as "the number one enemy of the sons of the Sakya's and a most cruel persecutor of the religion". The Divyavadana ascribes to him the razing of stupas and viharas built by Ashoka, the placing of a bounty of 100 dinaras upon the heads of Buddhist monks (Shramanas) and describes him as one who wanted to undo the work of Ashoka. This account has however been described as "exaggerated". Historian Romila Thapar writes that the Asokavadana legend is, in all probability, a "Buddhist version of Pusyamitra's attack of the Mauryas", and reflects the fact that, with the declining influence of Buddhism in the Imperial court, Buddhist monuments and institutions would receive less attention.

Some historians have rejected the accuracy of the Buddhist texts that record Pushyamitra’s persecution of Buddhists. The first accounts appear two centuries after Pushyamitra's reign in Asokâvadâna and the Divyâvadâna. Koenraad Elst posits that historical facts confirm that Pushyamitra allowed and patronized the construction of monasteries and Buddhist universities in his domains, as well as the still-existent stupa of Sanchi. While Sir John Marshall states that it is possible that the original brick stupa built by Ashoka was destroyed by Pusyamitra and then restored by his successor Agnimitra. Arhaelogical evidence is scarce and uncertain.Following Ashoka’s sponsorship of Buddhism, it is possible that Buddhist institutions fell on harder times under the Sungas but no evidence of active persecution has been noted. Etienne Lamotte observes: “To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof.”

The Sungas were patrons of Brahmanism and their lack of royal patronage was also a setback to Buddhism, resulting in the splintering of Buddhism into many forces. Some of them were: the Saravastivadins, Mahasargikas, Sthaviravadha, and Yogacara. This resulted in a diversity of opinions and interpretations that led to a conflict between warring schools shortly after the fall of the Mauryans. Later Sunga kings were seen as more amenable to Buddhism and as having contributed to the building of the stupa at Bharhut.

Brahmanism competed in political and spiritual realm with Buddhism in the gangetic plains while Buddhism flourished in the realms of the Bactrian kings.

I highlighted the three instances. It is only specific to this section due to the time period and the very particular strain of religious competition. This is also the time period typically ascribed to the writing of the "Manu Smriti", "Puranas", and other Hindu mythological epics upon which the Hindu philosophy today is based. (see Hinduism#Epic_and_Puranic_periods). Hope that is specific enough.--Tigeroo 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The contrast shown is superficial and is drawn from books of legend such as the Ashokavadana. A reworded line ought to suffice. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what this comment is about.--Tigeroo 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Consider that Brahminism is used for Hinduism in the same sense as crusaders is used for Christianity and Islamists is used for Islam. If the content can retain it's informative value than I suggest using "Hinduism" instead of Brahminism. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Crusaders, Islamists refers to a specific historical group of people. Yes it can be used as a demeaning term just as calling someone hitler can be used too. These however are specific historical ly relevant terms as well much as Brahmanism and Brahmins. They also have an academic definition see [Talk:Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India#POV_2] for the academic justifications for the term being a time-bound representation that the term Hinduism does not accuractely capture. The term brahmanism serves to provide specific information in this regard and is used in the academic jargon. Would it serve us better to expand the section and elucidate upon the concept being used either in-line or as a footnote?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeroo (talk • contribs) 13:59, February 2, 2007

Brahminism was used by some authors in the 19th century CE in hindsight, unlike the muslim invaders who actually led Jihadi campaigns. I have refrained from using Islamist Jihadis with respect to moslem generals despite some citations reflecting otherwise. Mention the actions, present the truth and let the reader make up his own mind without using either "Brahminism" or "Islamist Jihadis." Extremist terms do not belong for general use in a logbook of knowledge, the language of which is essentially sober. _{Freedom skies| talk}  10:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Brahmanism is used here in a historical and academically accepted phase that is quite distinct in the development of the hindu religion and therefore to mix them in the historical narrative is an error. Even Hindus themselves accept it. Brahmanism has been used in this section because that is the accurate description of the competing ideology. Buddhism fused with Brahminism, Bhaktism and other movements into Hinduism. True there are some connotations associated with it just as there are with the Crusades or Jihad, it is just a matter of dealing with the terms in a responsible manner. Feel free to add the Jihad into the Muslim actions if the act of it being a Jihad is relevant to the topic, after all they were also historical military facts and did carry the banner of conquest (One man's conqueror is another's invader). Infact Qasim's forces were raised as a Jihad to free the captives from Dahir, and we do have Mahmud operating under religious zeal. It is only a matter of dealing with the terms responsibly to present facts while keeping them from turning into POV statements. Islamist is a neologism so therefore it would likely be misplaced in this context.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

#3: Buddhism outside @ Sungas

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	The period however, has been described as one of political and spiritual competition with Hinduism in the gangetic plains and one in which Buddhism flourished in the realms of the Bactrian kings.	This is the accurate rendition of the meaning of the sources. - Tigeroo

My suggestion is:- Hinduism competed in political and spiritual realm with Buddhism in the gangetic plains. Buddhism flourished in the realms of the Bactrian kings. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems very similar to Tigeroo's solution. FS is giving one more reference, and the wording is a bit more elegant, so I'd go with that one. — Sebastian 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason to split the sentence up? They also read much better as one especially as they are contrasting the same historical time period. Also it's important to limit the statement to time period under question, this was not a state that existed a couple of centuries later etc.--Tigeroo 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to split them up: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use short sentences and lists. For me it seemed obvious that this statement was limited to this period, since it is in the section about the period. That doesn't mean we have to keep it as is. Since the two of you apparently agree on the facts here, I feel confident that we can keep this closed - which means, both of your are free to edit it to make it clearer. I wouldn't mind if someone added the part about the period or connected the two sentences with "while"; I don't think that would cause a big controversy. — Sebastian 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re "which means, both of your are free to edit it to make it clearer":

I tried, but some editors insisted on plain reverting despite a go ahead by you. — Freedom skies — continues after insertion below

Please, no vague accusations. Add diffs so we know what you're talking about. — Sebastian 06:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Line "Hinduism competed in political and spiritual realm with Buddhism in the gangetic plains. Buddhism flourished in the realms of the Bactrian kings. " is not only clearer but it does not draw any superficial contrasts. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The second line would then be superflous, however the source is making the contrast. However, for the sake of focusing on the topic which is decline, we can do away with the second sentence. Contrast is I agree can be construed as the creation of a certain POV, and the bactrian growth of buddhism is not related to it's decline.--Tigeroo 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing the second sentence may not be a bad idea at all. _{Freedom skies| talk}  10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

#4: Evangelization @ Sungas

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
[2]	Hinduism traditionally does not evangelize.	This quote as used appears to be both forced and out of context. It appears in the article in a manner that seems to imply that historically hinduism exerted no pressure on Buddhism, which is not the way the BBC article describes the interaction. - Tigeroo

To me the usage of this quote creates the impression that the both article it is sourced from quotes says there was negative pressure. However, the BBC article that is sourced from says that there was. From my end I just can't see how one can justify the impression created by that sentence in this article. Now, I want to understand what other wants or feels it means. That's kind of why I called in a mediator... -- (from Tigeroo, posted here by — Sebastian 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC))

Let me read the article. Stay tuned! — Sebastian 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, is http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/world_religions/hinduism.shtml the right link? I can't find that quote there. There are a number of links to articles on that page, but how that's of course not specific enough for a quotation. Maybe they moved the article? As a sign of goodwill to Freedom Skies, I will respect his request to wait a few days, and if he can't correct the quote we'll remove it. — Sebastian 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Another citation existed in the following line though. I removed the citation from the BBC and replaced them with these:- [3], Socialism, Secularism, and Democracy in India By K. V. Rao, Aditya Prasad Padhi (page 28 - page 30) and Enforcement of Human Rights in Peace and War and the Future of Humanity By Nagendra Singh (page 35) _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you referencing webindia123? That page doesn't contain the string "evangel" either. Would you be able to scan the two pages from the books and send them to me by e-mail? That would be the fastest way for me to verify it. — [[User:S— SebastianebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

By "evangelize" it is meant that Hinduism has yet to be associated with converting people from other religions to Hinduism. The webpage is an additional link. I will type out the paragraphas from the books for you in a few hours. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Refer below to segment below on a historical assesment of Buddhist-Hindu revival interactions. We are not talking necessarily about conversions to Hinduism though it is not ruled out. Once again the webindia article is talking about the state of Hinduism today while we are referencing a particular time period and an academic view widely held by reliable sources about that particular time period. If an opposing source can be found that says that Buddhism did not decline under pressure from philosophical and political pressures, I say we go ahead and include side by side as per WP:NPOV. My concern is about the relevance under WP:OR which asks us to find material directly related to the topic. So while the statement may stand under one context, does it fit or was it used by the source in this articles context?

You have a point that it does read like OR, or an opinion piece. In particular, beginnining the article with the "Islam" section of a "Buddhism" article with "Hinduism traditionally does not evangelize" does not sound very professional. Since, in addition, my questions of 19:02, 11 January 2007 have not been answered I will remove the sentence. — Sebastian 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the remaining sentence, "Hinduism does not allow conversion of non believers to the faith; it then tolerates the existence of other beliefs" isn't much better for an introduction, either. However, since this has not been disputed, I will leave it in for now. — Sebastian 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, just why is this sentence also in the Islam section?--Tigeroo 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by (the second) "also"? I only could find it in the Islam section. — Sebastian 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The remainder of the sentence likely came in when the reference was changed and the edited so it dates to after the discussions began. Same problem really it does not belong here. The also, my bad there was a moment when it was also replicated in the Sunga section. Wires are getting crossed a bit. Atm it is only one place so correction.--Tigeroo 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please clarify this paragraph? I have a hard time understanding you. (When done, you can delete this line.) Thx! — Sebastian 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to show that traditional Hinduism did not alter the demographics of Buddhism by mass conversions as was done in the case of Islam. Islam arrived and with it bought, for the first time in the history of India, conversion. This should be especially notable since WP:NPOV requires as many pertinent point of views to be mentioned as possible. The introduction of iconoclasm and forced conversions to India needs to be mentioned in contrast to the old native Dharmic religions of the country. The sentece "Hinduism does not allow conversion of non believers to the faith; it then tolerates the existence of other beliefs" was meant as a follow up to demonstrate that effect. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you find and cite a source that says that? Is it relevant to Islam?? Is the contrast even important?? The time periods and political situations were all different as well. Would a better approach not be to state Hinduism movement impacts and methods and Islamic movement impact and methods and let the reader make the connections instead of editorializing it with personal opinions? The problem with the sentence is firstly it does not fit, secondly that is not the way it used in the source either so it becomes wrong to use it here in that manner. I have mentioned an alternative way the same can be done in a much more efficiently NPOV manner. If there is something missing, feel free to add it, rather than remove information to balance a feeling of NPOV.--Tigeroo 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's important for "The actual decline of Buddhism" to note that the Islam, not the Dharmic religions allowed forced conversions. Sources have been provided to state that Islam does allow forced conversion and Hinduism does not. _{Freedom skies| talk}  05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is about decline of Buddhism in India. Please provide references to both instances WP:RS sources specific this topic rather than something else. Otherwise it is just WP:OR.--Tigeroo 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? I did not get that impression by your rewrite of Muhammad bin Quasim. Sources are already provided in the article (Enforcement of Human Rights in Peace and War and the Future of Humanity By Nagendra Singh - page 35 and In the Path of God (Ppr): Islam and Political Power By Daniel Pipes - page 45) and additional sources are mentioned above.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you say what's is not there from what you had in in your rewrite. Also there is a question of academic credentials which are much higher for the new sources than pipes and etc. Why are you fighting instead of discussing?? Can we keep the focus on specific items and deal with them in the right section instead of all of the place and mixing them all up?--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Well why don't you say what's is not there from what you had in in your rewrite.

I'm really not sure what that meant.

Also there is a question of academic credentials which are much higher for the new sources than pipes and etc.

That's what I meant by "additional sources".

_{Freedom skies| talk}  06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant what information is missing? I assume this was about the destruction of the stupa at Nerun. Thats there. I think this discussion is in the wrong section which is why we are getting all confused. You suggested Stanley Walport as a source, he is solid enough so if you can get something from him rather tha Pipes or Yeor or a couple of other non main-stream academics it would go a long way to improving the material.--Tigeroo 12:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I meant what information is missing? I assume this was about the destruction of the stupa at Nerun.

I'll indulge you then. The version you deleted had 54 notes. Compare that with the 49 notes in your version and tell me that you still claim not removing quality citations _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes 14, 15, are absolutely unverifable WP:verifiability, please see WP:Cite as well on formatting. 13, 16 & 18 are Eliot which are dated and used as primary sources. Please go over the article, 14 is replaced by a more specific reference from Appleby about Nerun and about other conquered sites. 13 leads into 14 but it cannot be verified that 14 is about Brahmanabad. The Brahmanabad conquest was where the decree for 3% of monies be given to Brahmins and the restoration and upkeep of stupas and temples was given etc. by qasim so anyway it would be a mistake to use it as an example in a decline. 15 & 16 are about Nirun again. I could go on about Nerun and their delegation to Hajjaj after the failed attacked even before qasim or about using Nerun as a resupply base and Qasim expecting to find more of a welcome than he received etc. but sufficient to say that they are not entirely what the samani concept is based on and details of the delegation are part of an even bigger story. Any rate the information were replications and alternative sources were provided for te same information. Hope that helps clear things up.--Tigeroo 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Not quite, If you wanted verification of notes you should have asked for written paragraphs or links to the books in question. Asking for page numbers etc. or a substitution instead of removing them unilaterally would not have been such a bad idea as well. 13, 16, 18 were needlessly deleted by you, Tigeroo. Not Surprisingly, these sources deal with the Islamic influence on the decline of Buddhism, something you remove incessantly. The Chach Nama has been mentioned as a source by you as well, Tigeroo.

The Brahmanabad conquest was where the decree for 3% of monies be given to Brahmins and the restoration and upkeep of stupas and temples was given etc. by qasim so anyway it would be a mistake to use it as an example in a decline.

If Quasim destroyed Buddhist sites then they will be mentioned in any event , Tigeroo. Alloting a measly 3% to Hindu subjects is actually being used a symbol of Quasim's good nature now?

The version is full of glowing support for Quasim like, "and as a whole, the non-Muslim populations of conquered territories were treated as People of the Book and granted Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religions the freedom to practice their faith in return for payment of the poll tax (jizya)."

For the new mediator, compare this version to the section in the present version and arrive at your own conclusions. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain, that the information lacking previous requests to improve the quality of the references has just been replaced with verifiable sources and not deleted, except for some repetitions as explained during the edits at various places, if required we can go over each one again. So am not sure what is the issue here on that note.

Destruction of sites by Qasim did not result in the decline of Buddhism, which is why mention of them is not relevant here. Infact Qasim's only significant is bringing the land under the influence of Islam and highlighting the Buddhist-"Hindu" political tensions of the age. As stated before I think Qasim is not really relevant to this article really beyond a leader note to the arrival Islamic-Buddhist interactions in the Indian sub-continent. If you look into the 3% a little more you will note that it was granted towards the upkeep of religious places and to the support of the priestly classes in recognition of the fact that they used to exact such a toll earlier, namely the Brahmins. Needless to add, this was political bridge building and consolidation of political alliances. He could not, and did not estrange his allies. Anyway, this conversation of part of why Qasim should not be a section but I beleive should be trimmed down so that it is no more than footnote in history as the precursor of Buddhist-Muslim interactions. Appleby is clearing stating that the conversions and the decline of Buddhism in the region had to wait for centuries after him. Those events were much later under the Sufi's.

Also, I am not quite sure how the article is glowing support. There are no adjectives of praise used in that sense. If you want to strike "as a whole" from that sentence as superlative language then go ahead.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

#5: 400-1000 @ Causes

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	The period between the 400 BCE and 1000 CE saw gains by Hinduism at the expense of Buddhism. Some Hindu rulers resorted to military means in their an effort to suppress Buddhism. However it is seen that the evolution of Hindu ideology influenced by Buddhisms was more important factor for the growth of Hinduism. Hinduism became a more "intelligible and satisfying road to faith for many oridinary worshippers" because it now included not only an appeal to a personal god, but had also seen the development of an emotional facet with the composition of devotional hymns.	This is what the source BBC has to say on the issue relevant to the topic of our article, Buddhisms decline vis-a-vis interaction with hinduism. The sourced material is used to replace earlier material which had been deemed OR or unsupported.- Tigeroo

There is no "Causes" section anymore. Is this still an issue or can we just close this? — Sebastian 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The material was initially placed to replace other uncited material, that was deemed objectionable as OR. Is there any objection to restoring this material? It;s not duplicatin anything elsewhere and so seems to adding value to the article.--Tigeroo 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Unless Freedom skies objects, please feel free to insert. (Place "per [[WT:MEDCAS/DoBiI##5: 400-1000 @ Causes]]" in summary.) — Sebastian 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the text does not belong in the introduction at all. It should be assimilated into the respective time frames and put there. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be re-labelled if a proposal can be made.. I don't see any item among the sub-sections in the idelogical section that chronologically precedes this even. Adi Shankarya is part of the later end of this section, Xuanxang about the middle. It seems to me to provide a concise summary of the buddhist decline during the period 400-1000 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeroo (talk • contribs) 14:35, February 2, 2007

Not quite, it's not labelled in the first place. It's the unlabelled begining to the "Ideological and financial causes" section. The misplaced information should be assimilated into the respective time frames and put there. "Rulers resorting to military means" does not belong under the "Ideological and financial causes", rather it belongs to the proper time frame. The rest of the sentence has little or nothing to do with the decline. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a fairly simple issue to fix. How about we do not segregate the article into parts tracing two different time lines and place the article into a singular time line of historical flow. After all political events and ideological factors often went hand in hand.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

#6: Decline @ Qasim

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	Information too long to paste in here, but comprehensive information from multiple reputable academic sources.	Muhammad bin Qasim is not part of any "decline of Buddhism". He is rather regarded as having been welcomed to overthrow what was seen a Hindu usurping dynasty that oppressed the Jats. His army of 6,000 cavalry was bolstered by local alliances from the Jats who boosted his force by supplying the infantry so that there were 30-50,000 that engaged in the larger battles. His time span in sindh was between 3-4 years. He did convert the main city stupas to the main city mosques but mainstream academics do not regards this as "oppression" but as a "marking a stamp of conquest". He is infact credited for leniency and the introduction of the Hanafi school of thought, and setting the trend of inclusion of Brahmin and Buddhist elites into administration. Buddhism as mentioned in the BBC article was already in decline and it took centuries for the conversion to take place. 3 Centuries later when Ghazni came there were plenty of stupas to sack. - Tigeroo

What's the bone of contention? 07:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of the historical representation in reference to his impact upon the article topic. Listing of select facts without context under a sub-heading under this article is creating an inaccurate representation.--Tigeroo 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Tigeroo seems to be missing Quasim destroying a Buddhist holy site and building a mosque in it's place and demolishing temples and monasteries, e.g. he built at Nirun a mosque on the site of the temple of Budh. Note that this is strictly an abridged version, more citations covering his persecution in detail can be provided. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Status: Waiting for any reference from Tigeroo, for exact quote from Freedom skies. — Sebastian 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources has this to say. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have a Google account. If it was just for me, I'd consider signing up, but we also want to document this for other people who may come later and question our decision. Could you therefore please add the important part of the text verbatim? — Sebastian 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry for the delay. Things keep coming up when I'd most like to dedicate my time here. Here is the relevant text:-

After defeating the nearby port city , Quasim destroyed a Buddhist holy site and built the first mosque on the continent.

From page 25 of "Pakistan: ps:pakistan,cultural Guide(p+) By Marian Rengel"

Muhammad Quasim built at Nirun a mosque at the site of the temple of Budh, and ordered prayers to be proclaimed in Muhammaden fashion, and appointed an Imam.

From page 158 of "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period. Volume 1 By Henry Miers Elliot"

I'll provide more citations if required.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with the above events, just that selective presentation gives an inaccurate picture of Qasim's true impact. I don't think I missed any of the events cited, I have no issues with including them. The Nerun mosque was included as well references that there were a few more similar incidents as well as the subsequent ban on such actions extended after the conquest. I had a much more expansive version up which gave better context and was also based on more modern and reputed sources. i.e Elliot is over a 100 years old. More particulary it also directly addressed the change in legal status this resulted in to Buddhists and what that meant to them, muslim proslytization in the region and the rate of conversion. It also touched upon the political situation of dissent of the predominantly buddhist population of a hindu monarch. These were based on sources that directly discussed and evaluated the impact of Muslim conquest under Muhammad bin Qasim on the local religions in light of the entire corpus of material available on the events of the period. --Tigeroo 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I had a much more expansive version up"? Could you please provide a link? I see your points, and in addition, I also don't like the fact that paragraph 3 is separated from paragraph 1 by a paragraph that seems to have nothing to do with the two. I'd love to see a better version for this. — Sebastian 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This diff should highlight the changes proposed in Qasim.--Tigeroo 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see! Given that Freedom skies has not pointed out any fault with your text since he deleted it on Jan 11, I will replace the text with your version and close this issue as resolved. This means that you are both free to copyedit and improve it; in particular I can imagine that Freedom skies may want to add the information about the first mosque in the appropriate place. — Sebastian 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited it in a manner that retains both versions. It's done. _{Freedom skies| talk}  05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I just see a very truncated section which gives no perspective and once uses out-dated and less reliable sources than the one which was replaced. Also sources are not specific to page numbers etc. It also uses language that the Neutrality project commented on changing. Also before making the changes on the page we were supposed to make a proposal here and discuss if there were any issues instead of making adhoc changes. Some issues "Muhammad Bin Quasim is linked with Islamic persecution of Buddhists", is not in the source this is and sentence that is attempting to link the next with the above. Qasim only converted the main "worship place" of certain towns to one of the new conquerors. Not really "persecution" but more of a victory standard stamped there. Can see appleby, the same is just duplicated later below the main instance was at Nerun. The Samanis ignores that Nerun had already been in contact with the Caliph ever since the first failed attempt before Qasim and simply opened its gates to Qasim and provided him with a place to replenish his forces in alliance, not in capitulation like various other cities. There is no claim, it is just a historical repore from the various sources. The entire proslytization section is missing which is actually critical to show how Buddhism declined timewise in the region. The jizya did not single out Buddhists. After the conquest the stupas were financed for rebuilding and their destruction was forbidden by law. Now it's a different case if this situation continued to exist or not, but Qasim was only there for 3 years and barely after his conquest so we can't anything about such things under Qasim administration. Generally Qasim's immediate impact was quite minor it was his policy decisions and his conquest that set a tone for the region.--Tigeroo 20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted Freedom skies's edits because they were neither explained in the edit summary, nor on the talk page, nor here. They were obviously far from minor edits - in fact, from Tigeroo's reply I realized that they contained at least some reversions of what we had agreed here. I am keeping the issue closed, but that does not  mean that anyone can just edit them to an extent that counters what was decided here, especially if there is ample time for explaining one's concerns! — Sebastian 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The decline section as reworded by Tigeroo does not deal with the actual decline at all, you restored a version which deals with how well the conquerer treated his people and omits any moslem desecration of stupas at all. Tigeroo's version has once again, resulted in lavish praises for rulers who verifiably destroyed Buddhist sites and yet my version is reverted. Secondly, we should either have the text mentioned here or have Sebastian put it in the article and not edit ourselves. The article in it's current form is severely polluted due to problems such as these._{Freedom skies| talk}  12:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I see clear mention of stupas and those of Nirun and was even expanded to say other such stupas went down as well. The only thing I don't see is only mention of destruction but other things as well.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Mentionong Quasim's role in the decline as per Sebastian's "This means that you are both free to copyedit and improve it; in particular I can imagine that Freedom skies may want to add the information about the first mosque in the appropriate place."

The language of this entire article will need a once over after the two editors are through putting material in the article.

When my sources are verified then it will be found that I tried to mellow down the harsh judgement passed on Quasim due to the atrocities committed by him. I'll take out the "Muhammad Bin Quasim is linked with Islamic persecution of Buddhists" line and put in the proslytization section, which should have been done by Tigeroo himself before he advocated removal of everything just because I corrected most of it and not all of it. The jizya, as mentioned, was always for the "non muslims". As for Quasim's period of reign. it's not under dispute by either involved. _{Freedom skies| talk}  13:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the jizya is mentioned as being for other than non-muslims, but how does that contrast or factor in as being responsible for the decline of buddhism under Qasim's reign needs to be explained if it has to be placed in this article at all. On your sources, Eliot is very dated, over a 100 years old and there are no pages for Engel which is repeating the same information as Eliot anyway. The same information is just sourced from Appleby which is much more authoritative and is even more specific rather than a vague statement of some holy site. Yes he stamped his conquest with by demolishing a few stupas and imposing the jizya but that is not the same as Qasim impacted a Buddhist decline, they were on his side though as subject clients. You are talking about the wrong man, if you want to say Ghazni or Timur etc than you have something.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't see where the jizya is mentioned as being for other than non-muslims

The line reads "In return of paying the head tax of Jizya, the non-Muslim populations of conquered territories were given the freedom to practice their faith."

Further explainations are unnessasary, neither were they provided in your version.

On your sources, Eliot is very dated, over a 100 years old and there are no pages for Engel which is repeating the same information as Eliot anyway.

Elliot is used to quote Al Kufi, from The Chachnama, not provide contemorary critique.

Yes he stamped his conquest with by demolishing a few stupas and imposing the jizya but that is not the same as Qasim impacted a Buddhist decline

So an invading army destroys your holy sites and religious monuments and you're content because they're "stamping their victory?"

If razing of Stupas and imposing of a head tax does not amount to persecution then what does?

Kindly keep personal opinons aside, I have additional sources if you'd like to ask for them.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll tackle them item by item so we can have a better chance at resolving at least some if not all:

1. Jizya is being implied as being responsible for the decline by it's manner of usage. I agree it is overboard and needs trimming if we work on either making the relevance of the information as directly visible otherwise it needs to be contextualized to counter the impression. If the tax is responsible you will have to demonstrate how that tax contributed to the decline otherwise it is either a stray or it could also imply by lack of mention that muslims were exempt and only non-muslims were taxed which is not true they had a different tax. Also the tax gave them not only the right to practice their faith, but also absolvement from military service so both need mention to balance the context. We can trim it or scratch it, or alternative you can get specific to link how the tax played a role then we can go ahead and improve the article content. Appleby however does not link the jizya to a decline especially under Qasim.
2. Primary sources are a problem, so thats an additional problem. Tertiary sources are better because they put things in context. A US Marine raped a fillipna civilian. It is a fact, but put by it's own in an article about Persecution of filipinos it implies that the US Army is responsible for persecuting filipinos. This is why Appleby is a better source.
3. I have not inserted my personal opinions into the article. No, such a thing does not amount to persecution, see above. It is discrimination. Persecution would be if the stupa destruction was a systematic and endemic active policy, i.e. it was persistent. In Qasim's case it was limited to making sure that the "main" place of worship in his new kingdom was one that belonged to his religion, and not even in all cities at that. It did not entail the mass destruction of temples or the uprooting of the priestly class. Again the poll tax was a levy placed on conquered people. This was done by all kings and empires, however jizya stands out as it is rooted in religious difference. As for the content question, the bigger question is are you content that they are in your country? Content is no related to persecution. If there are other more viable examples we can use them. Anyway, my opinions are only for elaboration of my though process and of my findings so at the end of day it verifiable and reliable content that matters and if I cannot back it up I can't use it. As it stands I have incorporated the stupa destruction into. Generally I agree the Qasim section is too large because of all the "muslim" rulers that could have been picked on for making a better case, he is a flimsy one. If you have sources that can shed more light on persecution sure go ahead, in the end it's actual matter that matters so to speak.--Tigeroo 12:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Again,

Jizya is being implied as being responsible for the decline by it's manner of usage.

The one line reads "In return of paying the head tax of Jizya, the non-Muslim populations of conquered territories were given the freedom to practice their faith."

Keep personal opinions out of it.

Primary sources are a problem, so thats an additional problem. Tertiary sources are better because they put things in context.

The Chachnama is a source used by you as well, Tigeroo. It's not a problem then.

No, such a thing does not amount to persecution, see above.

Again, Keep personal emotions out of it, Tigeroo.

Destruction of religious sites amounts to persecution and will be penned down as such.

Generally I agree the Qasim section is too large because of all the "muslim" rulers that could have been picked on for making a better case, he is a flimsy one.

There is no need for "picking" anyone else. After all this is the Quasim section.

You removed sources, Tigeroo. The "On the Indian subcontinent, Hindu combatants captured during Jihad campaigns were massacered on a large scale, as documented by Muslim chroniclers. After Muhammad bin Qasim took the fort of Brahmanabad in Sindh following a 6-month siege, around 711-712 C.E." line, a quotation from Al Kufi, from The Chachnama is gone thanks to your deliberate efforts of removing Islam's damaging aspect. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Itemized:

1. There is personal opinion inserted. Sourced information about the jizya imposed in sindh by qasim. It's not even collated from different sources or sections it all together in the same section that deals with qasim in the source that mentions jizya.
2. Please do not confused the name Chach-nama with the same original Chach-nama. The references are not directly linked to the actual content of the primary source but is not made reference to the commentary made in the introduction. That qualifies as a tertiary source.
3. Once again no personal opinions or editorializations are introduced into the article. All information I have placed is from academic sources and directly about Qasim. If there is a specific sentence that is of concern let me know and we can address it directly.
4. Keep your personal opinions of what is relevant to the decline out of the matter please and bring RS that specificallys make the connection.
5. Qasim and the decline of Buddhism is going to be hard to link, beyond that he conquered the territory and therebey opened up the region to political and philosophical influences of the Muslim world. I would be more than interested myself to find out otherwise as I have more than a passing acquaintance with his history. See the provided reference about the conversion and decline of the hindu population in the region.
6. Again about Kufi, please bring RS sources etc and please make them historically equivalent. Similar actions can easily be documented of Chach of Alor himself during his conquest etc. Please also take a quick survey of historical war behavior and the concept of POW. In the historical sense limiting the executions was itself abnormal. Again, no reliable academic ties the decline of Buddhism to war casualties, the dangers of using primary sources are inherent in this example.--Tigeroo 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

There is personal opinion inserted.

Yes there is, in the version by you. It reads "and as a whole, the non-Muslim populations of conquered territories were treated as People of the Book and granted Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religions the freedom to practice their faith in return for payment of the poll tax (jizya)."

Compare that with the "In return of paying the head tax of Jizya, the non-Muslim populations of conquered territories were given the freedom to practice their faith." from the version you completely reverted.

Personal opinions need to be kept out of this, Tigeroo.

Please do not confused the name Chach-nama with the same original Chach-nama.

Not quite, the author quotes from Al Kufi himself, from The Chachnama.

Qasim and the decline of Buddhism is going to be hard to link,

The only problem I see is you reverting my edits incessantly, Tigeroo. The authors and historians describe his actions of destruction of Buddhist sites, imposition of head tax on everyone other than the moslems and massacre of Hindu combatants as part of a violent Jihad. I refrained from using such harsh language and just presented the facts in a sober, encyclopedic language for everyone's benefit.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

#7: Pipes @ Ref

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	Polemical and POV sources, while notable in some circles it is not WP:RS compliant.	This can easily be swapped for better sources if true. It only serves an islamophobic POV and actually detracts from the credibility of the article. Context can be seen at Daniel Pipes for a preference for more mainstream balanced sources. - Tigeroo

I'm confused. Is reference no. 36 [In the Path of God (Ppr): Islam and Political Power By Daniel Pipes (page 45)] under question here? If it is then would it suffice if additional references were procured validating the claim? _{Freedom skies| talk}  20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question to Freedom skies: Would you have a problem with swapping, as opposed to adding?

Question to Tigeroo: Would you have a problem with adding, as opposed to swapping? — Sebastian 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If we change the citation then we'll have to additionally work on rewording the "When conquered, Islamic rulers have been known implement a policy on their subjects to either accept conversion to Islam or flee the land under Islamic rule; otherwise punishable by enslavement or even execution" line as well. Additional reference confirming this one should address Tigeroo's claims of "Polemical and POV sources" sufficiently. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can find this (or an equivalent) statement in another source? If not, we should cut it (if we can't establish Pipe as an RS). If yes, why not simply use that wording? — Sebastian 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not averse at all to swapping. I'll provide another reference. I would also like to say that it is heartening to know that our mediator is so thorough. I should have the citation as soon as my next entry here. _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! It encourages me to do future mediations. — Sebastian 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Here:-

• Islam at War: A History By Mark W. Walton, George F. Nafziger, Laurent W. Mbanda (page 228)
• Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis By Bat Yeʼor (page 34)

This should suffice. _{Freedom skies| talk}  03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Same problem with Bat Yeor, politically charged and polarized. I didn't even go look at the material. The other one I am not sure which part is relevant. The page is talking about forced conversion by the Almohads in North Africa and there is no mention of Buddhism and India. I am not saying mass conversions or forced conversion did not take place, but this is an encylopedia so let the facts right accurate and relevant to the particular topic and how they impacted Buddhism here. It also needs to contextualized in scope and actual impact etc. --Tigeroo 13:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can find additional citations but I'm not inclined to; Your sources are based mostly on the dalit POV and you have problems with both Pipes and Yeor? In any event, I guess no one will have any problems with India By Stanley Wolpert (page 41) then? _{Freedom skies| talk}  05:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you be specific? I am quite specific. Which instance is a dalit POV source? Also I do not know what stanley wolpert is saying but yes he does appear to qualify under WP:RS. Please read WP:RS. It should be really easy to do so and very easily verifiable "if that is the mainstream and not some extreme view" if it isn't you probably won't be able to. If you can get relevant material from Wolpert sure we can use that, he fits the bill unlike Pipes or Yeor.--Tigeroo 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The mention of Friends of the Western Buddhist Order in an encyclopedic case ought to suffice, Tigeroo. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about them, nor have I heard anything about them. They seem to be an external link and are not used to reference any material. Which also brings me to the question how are they relevant to this topic. (As an aside I am not sure how that link is even relevant to this article topic so if you want to remove it go ahead it just seems like advertisement to me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeroo (talk • contribs) 15:07, February 2, 2007

---

I don't know anything about them, nor have I heard anything about them.

Yet you revert the whole thing indiscriminately from a version which removed them to a version (your version/current version) which mentions them?

Do you even read the edits before you revert them blindly as you did in the Maha Bodhi Society, Tigeroo?

• (cur) (last) 04:44, 3 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (blanked material?)
• (cur) (last) 00:34, 3 February 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (rm OR, restored Blanked Material, rm sections which belong to Mahabodhi arcticle. restore formatting,)
• (cur) (last) 18:26, 2 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (additional citations then)

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

#8: But @ Islam

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	Therefore in Arabic chronicles it is not always evident if Buddhists, Hindus or other Indian religions are meant.	This section needs a citation and seems to be an editorialization. - Tigeroo

I suggest a removal of this line. The line is of very little consequence to the actual "Decline of Buddhism in India" issue. _{Freedom skies| talk}  20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since neither of the two sides seems to like this text, and I agree that it has precious little to do with the subject, I will remove it and consider this item closed. Hooray, our first success! — Sebastian 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

#9: Temples @ Islam

#9: Temples @ Islam - misunderstood

The gray bordered subsection is only kept for historical purposes; it has been deprecated by the next subsection. Sebastian 06:33, January 17, 2007 Or so I thought, until the teal bordered part was added. — Sebastian 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC) diffs proposed solution explanation Buddhism suffered immensely during the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent with muslim rulers such as Muhammad bin Qasim, Muhammad of Ghor, Qutb-ud-Din and Aurangzeb destroying temples and shrines, as well as seeking conversion of Buddhists to Islam. Duplicated information. Can be parsed into appropiate sections and proper cited information can be used to more accurately describe and elaborate the issue. The sentence as it stands is vague and generic. It needs to be supported by: How? - Tigeroo Is the bone of contention whether this should be under "Buddhism in Southern India" or under "Causes"? — Sebastian 07:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) First of all, citations for the rulers is given in "Buddhism under various governments" above. Secondly, the section mentions that "Hinduism is not associated with forced conversions" , neither are most Dharmic religions for that matter but that's another discussion. Islam on the other hand is associated with forced conversions. Freedom skies| talk  18:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Which section of "Buddhism under various governments" do you mean? This statement itself is in one of the sections of that chapter. The correct way to fix this is to use a tag like <ref name="somename"/>. I'll readd the {{fact}} tag for now. — Sebastian 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Is it necessary to have mention of Hinduism here? Also is that what the sources says? Otherwise it is not accurate to use it in a manner implying something that it doesn't itself explicitly say.--Tigeroo 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, I think I finally understand what you mean. Do you mean the same as what I wrote above? — Sebastian 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, it was just duplicated in the version I used to list the issues thats why it is cropping up twice on this page here.--Tigeroo 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, "Indian Himalaya Handbook: The Travel Guide By Robert W. Bradnock" ("The muslim conquest dealt the final death blow, being accompanied by the large scale slaughter of monks and the destruction of monasteries" - page 376) and "Thai Art with Indian Influence By Promsak Jermsawatdi" ("But the important cause leading to the downfall of Buddhism was the Muslim conquest of India." - page 14) record the importance of the Muslim conquest. Surpringly enough you put in "the period between the 400 BCE and 1000 CE saw gains by Hinduism at the expense of Buddhism. Some Hindu rulers resorted to military means in an effort to suppress Buddhism." and the mention of the damaging aspect of Islam is a problem? Freedom skies| talk  05:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Add it if it's not there and in context. Make a proposal here. I am all for adding relevant, supported and neutral. On the Muslim side I have not touched Ghazni or Ghurids because they did have an impact unlike Qasim. Personally I beleive there were two stages to the decline of Buddhism starting from the Sunga rise, one before the 10th century where it under an onslaught of a combined Hindu political and philosophical change, which saw it virtually dissapear in the south of india and get confined to the plains. It had intermittent support of varying degrees from various political spheres as well opposition. Then the Muslim conquests which removed even those vestiges of political and philosophical influence very rapidly leaving it exposed to finish off integration with Hinduism or under Sufi philosophical pressures. Even monetary and political pressure under the Muslim rule added to this seeing it off. Then again what I beleive is only marginally important if it is not what I can directly support as the majority academic view. Remember most of these conqeuring forces were themselves were Turkic peoples who had a significant Buddhist component themselves. They were not conquered by Islam but converted both within, by interaction but mostly beyond the caliphate and swept in conquered and assimilated into Islam. Anyway it matters little unless this can be shown as the dominant modern academic view. Hope that helps address your concern and shows a manner to take a solution. It will take an effort and some time to acheive concensus but I urge to make it.--Tigeroo 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC) The muslim conquest's role is endorsed by the Mahbodhi society, and historians alike. Invading forces were not mostly turks but persians and central asian as well. The instances of forced conversions and damage to the holiest of Buddhist shrines includig the shrines at Nalanda and Bodh Gaya find mention in the most mainstream of sources. Freedom skies| talk  19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Please see explanation. I don't see any conflict with that or what you have just said above.--Tigeroo 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

#9: Hinduism @ Islam

This is the second attempt for the above subsection.

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	Delete the sentence "Hinduism does not allow conversion of non believers to the faith; it then tolerates the existence of other beliefs"	It isn't much better for an introduction than the sentence we just deleted.

This remains from the deletion above. It seems Ti wants it to be deleted, and I think he's right, per what I wrote in ##4: Evangelization @ Sungas. — Sebastian 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the fundamental differences between Hinduism and Islam is the contradicting principle and the extent of conversion. It deserves a mention in the article. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why a contrast needs to be drawn especially since it mostly polemical and the sources are likely to be POV charged on either side and currently involves literary gymnastics with the english and citations to get across. It would be better to simply talk about each periods effects and the driving factors in a factual manner and leave it to the readers. This was suggested by the Neutrality project reviewers as we all a method of resolving this issue. Does it sound acceptable?--Tigeroo 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Polemical and the sources" included the Dalit published articles as well, the contrast need not be drawn in a one-sentence manner; it can be the first line introducing the non-conversion priciples of Hinduism and the following line mentioning the forced conversions. _{Freedom skies| talk}  05:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

True polemical can include Dalit published articles. Note that is why I used the Merriam Webster Encyclopedia. I don't even use Ambedkar, because while he is slightly notable he is not really an academic authority. If we have specific issues with the POV of some sources we can take it up and discuss and find other non-biased sources. Please be specific so we can talk particulars, rather than just moving in and doing changes without explaining or talking about it so that another solution can be found. I still don't see what non-conversion principle of hinduism has to do with the decline of buddhism, the general argument made by academics is that Hinduism evolved from syncretism and comunication with Buddhism, Jainism, Brahmanism under the Bhakti movement influences and discoures with later saivite and vaishnavite under political patronage. The decline was due to assimilationary convergent pressures. This is already a clearly dissimilar change than the conversions and much more limited syncretic interactions that occured under Islam and their political leadership. Also it's been argued that Buddhism had already declined, most vanished in south india and been pressured into small vihara's etc before the muslims came so that their sacking quickly dissipated the last of the footholds. Simply recounting the actions of the historical progress "show" the reader making it unnecssary to "tell" the reader through editorializing with OR. See the Neutrality Projects comments to the same as well.--Tigeroo 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If useful can we call for more third party comments on this issue from the Neutrality project to resolve this?--Tigeroo 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The non conversion principle did not allow forced conversion of Buddhists to Hinduism. Islam, on the other hand, did force conversion of Buddhists to Islam. That contrast is shown very clearly in the article. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If the contrast exists then we don't need to editorialize or bring in unconnected snippets from sources that are not talking about our topic. It will stand out and be clearly visible to the reader. I guess I don't need to reiterate to you to keep personal opinions out?--Tigeroo 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

#10: Decline @ South

diffs	proposed solution	explanation
	==Buddhism in Southern India== In the south of India while there was no overt persecution of Buddhists at least two Pallava rulers Simhavarma and Trilochana are known to have destroyed Buddhist stupas and have had Hindu temples built over them. Furthermore a vigorous Hindu revival of Vaishnavite Hinduism in the region led to a sharp decline of Buddhism.[4]}	There is a source, and a historical basis for this section. Refer to the history of the Kalabhras. There are also accounts from Chinese scholar who travelled India cataloging Buddhism as well as the issues with the Vaishnavite concepts that called Buddha as deceiver god who led people astray that pressured Buddhism under the Chalukyas etc.. The history of the decline of Buddhism in South India does not follow the story of the north. It has entirely different actors and a different time scale that this article misses. - Tigeroo

Is this still an issue? — Sebastian 05:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it might amount to. I'll just take a few hours to come back with a reference and present my POV on this and other issues in detail. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I request additional sources for verification of this information. The information is speculative and vague in nature and in it's current form not eligible to encyclopedic entry. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. Since this is wikipedia, we do not necessarily delete material that does seem to meet the criteria. Mark it stub, or one that needs expansion or needs further information any of the myriad section tags available. Leave it up for a bit to see if it is expanded and improved. Right now is one link and reason to that the speculation is based on something. It doesn't warrant summary deletion is all.--Tigeroo 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove the speculated piece of vauge "information" unless multiple WP:RS sources cannot verify them. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub it, tag it as appropriate temporarily. I will look into expanding the section with much more WP:RS and if I cannot I will remove it. Sounds fair? To me atm it sounds like it has a basis, but being occupied with the debates over the rest of the page I had never had to time to come back and expand it.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New issues by Freedom Skies

These issues have been brought up a month after we completed the issue list. There is no agreement yet if we want to allow including new issues that late. I addressed this problem in a mail on Jan 28 (copied here, but have not received an answer yet. I am therefore inserting this headline to separate them from the agreed issues. — Sebastian 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Islam

Tigeroo has seen to Islam's mention being removed from both the revival and the Muhammad bin Quasim sections. Such agendas are certainly unwelcome as they come with deletion of sourced text. In addition the section "Xuanzang's Report" does not have any mention Islam whatsoever. Tigeroo, convieniently omittimg Islam while mentioning Hinduism from sources like Dalit publications is surprising. _{Freedom skies| talk}  13:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if you think the article is unbalanced please cite from WP:RS sources and add. Deleting material and editorializing with OR, marginal or off topic information does not improve the article. As for Xuangxang and Islam, it may be because he barely mentioned them?? It may also be because he returned when the Muslims were still in Persia so they just weren't there when he visited????? You still have to identify the offending the dalit publication. I will happily replace it for a more suitable source.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Dude, if you think the article is unbalanced please cite from WP:RS sources and add

I did, and you removed simply everything Tigeroo.

Deleting material and editorializing with OR, marginal or off topic information does not improve the article.

Exactly, That's why you should cease the efforts to paint Quasim's destruction of Buddhist holy sites as "stamping of victory and not persecution."

As for Xuangxang and Islam, it may be because he barely mentioned them??

You admit that he mentioned them then, Tigeroo. Yet the references to Islam were not put in by you. I will see that they do find their place though.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please qualify simply everything. I have been very specific and given you reasons. See this is as a challenge to improve the items. Generally, speaking if they relevant, on topic and reflect the sources than ok. A good example is the BBC source you used, and I have listed the problems to help you address my concern so that we actually have a good article with strong content. When I went to the BBC source there I did not find what you used it to refer to, instead I found something totally opposite, the evangelization had nothing to do with the Sunga period etc. When they are strong and factual I have let them stand. As for Xuanxang, I admit nothing because I know nothing of him mentioning muslims at all. When Xuanxang completed his travels and returned via todays modern day Afghanistan, Muslims had just started engaging the Persians so I would actually be very surprised to hear anything to that end. I have told you that this article is far from finished and there is a lot that can be added. Feel free to do so, but please do it well. See it as a challenge, positive robust editing can only help the article get better.--Tigeroo 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that Tigeroo was specific; trying to convince Freedom skies to be specific has been very frustrating for me. — Sebastian 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The #1: Dalits @ intro section details Tigeroo removing Islam completely from the revival section. Removal of Islam's influence has also been given in #6: Decline @ Qasim discussion. I notified you using all channels at my disposal, including the discussion pages here. _{Freedom skies| talk}  11:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro to Ideological and financial causes

The intro has topics already covered in detail in other sections. The intro has one line about the decline and the rest belongs in Buddhism's influence on Hinduism and not in the decline section. Remove the lines and shift them to their respective periods. _{Freedom skies| talk}  13:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only here and not in the right section because somewhere along in the edit wars the chronological sequence layout got reverted back to this. Plus the rest of the paragraph is saying why Buddhism declined by assimilation into a new Hinduism.--Tigeroo 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, The intro needs to be changed and the information assimilated. The time period in question is already covered. "It's only here and not in the right section because somewhere along in the edit wars the chronological sequence layout got reverted back to this." is not fair rationale. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, its not a fair rationale, but unfortunately it is the only reason it exists in this state and has failed to be successfully moved not elsewhere. If we can agree to a new layout and arrangement we can move it as appropriate in the context of the article.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempts and proposals to calm down the heat

Edit wars jeopardize this case

I don't like the edit wars on both articles. While it is hard to stop third persons, as in the edit war that took place yesterday, it is clearly disruptive if involved parties keep editing while we're trying to mediate. In particular, conducting an edit war about what is being discussed in inacceptable. I am disappointed with both parties:

• I asked Tigeroo (talk · contribs) just yesterday to explain his reason for the desired change, and instead of answering my question, he starts this war. I therefore revert to the old version.
• Freedom skies (talk · contribs) just put me off because he said he didn't have enough time for the mediation - but then he has time for that!

If I don't see a significant change in attitude by both parties I will have to question the willingness of both parties to seek mediation. One other well-intended person who tried to help with this situation already bowed out. How many good willing people are you planning to wear out for you POV war? This has to stop right now! — Sebastian 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the above quote, I'm not familiar with what led to Nina resignation, but from the spectacle I just witnessed I think it might be a good idea if both parties apologized to her. — Sebastian 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I must have misunderstood the question. I thought you just wanted me to edit the language and explanations in my goals and reasons, which I tried, let me know if it was not enough. Nina I think you can follow in the talk pages of the page, to avoid revisting past tensions I won't comment on it and just look at a more restrained behavoir in the days ahead.--Tigeroo 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I was waiting for was a reply to User talk:Tigeroo#Goals, but let's discuss that there. Is the second sentence addressed to Nina? don't quite understand it, but I'll just take it as an apology since that's how you summarized it. Cheers! — Sebastian 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a new issue? Seems the expansion of the last section has also run into problems. Can we take it up as well?--Tigeroo 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand you. Please be specific, and use links where appropriate, e.g. to diffs. — Sebastian 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Acute changes

By "acute changes", I mean changes that have been made after I activated the mediation and that do not reflect the consensus reached at the time. It has been brought to my attention that at least one party did such acute changes.

I take responsibility for that, because I did not communicate clearly that I would like both parties to refrain from acute changes while the mediation is going on. The reason why I'm asking for this is that I believe it is crucial for a good solution that both parties build up trust, and I am afraid that acute changes undermine just that trust. There is no hurry; please wait till we reach a solution together!

To allow me to correct my mistake, please do three steps:

1. List diffs of acute changes here
2. make sure that all involved issues are listed in te Goal oriented issues table
3. add "agree", "disagree - will explain" or "disagre - see discussion" (meaning the discussion of the issue on the discussion page) in the solutions column.

Once you're done, I will go through the diffs and revert all acute changes that are not sufficiently explained. — Sebastian 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new procedure

The recent reoccurrence of another edit war showed me that we need to slow down a notch. Please don't do any changes until we have found a solution how to prevent future edit wars.

I have one idea which I think helps, but it hasn't been tried before to my knowledge. How about if we agreed on this?

Procedure for changes:

1. Describe the desired change in the issues list. If it is a new issue, then (a) create a new headline according in the same format as the already existing issues and (b) add an appropriate line in the goal oriented issues table. (Please also adjust the recently added issues.)
2. Seek to understand each other's position. I will help with that. You increase your chances to be understood and taken seriously if you add a goal into the goal oriented issues table.
3. Wait till the other party or the mediator agrees with a change. (This could be a proposed compromise. If the compromise has been proposed by mediator then it can be applied right away, unless stated differently.)
4. Surround that agreement with <span id="Issue_name: change_name"> ... </span>, where change_name is some mnemonic you can make up.
   

   Example: <span id="3: Buddhism outside @ Sungas: while">I wouldn't mind if someone added the part about the period or connected the two sentences with "while"; </span>

5. Do the change, one change at a time, with the edit summary "Description of change per [[WT:MEDCAS/DoBiI#Issue_name: change_name]]"

Does this find your approval? I'm also afraid that this page is getting to long already. Do you think we could gain anything by shortening it? We could archiving the current version. Or mabye we could create subpages? — Sebastian 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your suggestions, they seem entirely reasonable. I am actually surprised at the edits because I thought we had agreement on those are seemingly getting reverted too. To me it seems hard to understand especially when I limited my edits to only items specifically talked about on the page as cleared to add to. Such as @ revival & the while at item 2.--Tigeroo 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be clearer if we establish a timeframe for a response or agree that a lack of a response or objection = agreement?? Or we could carry out edits via the mediator, rather than indivually do it as it seems to raise the heat again??--Tigeroo 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions - I love brainstorming!

time limit: I agree, that's a good idea. How about if both of you state your your ideal time limit and we'll use the maximum?

edits by mediator only: I don't like it so much because I'm hoping to wean you off the mediator a bit. Not only because I'm trying to keep it simple for me but more importantly because it's the better solution in the long run. Moreover, you seem to be in similar time zones, so you'll have less of a delay when you both agree.

Another thing I've been considering was if we should even admit new items at this time. Freedom skies certainly has a point about the intro, but he wrote this almost a month after I asked to provide a list with issues. How do you feel about this? — Sebastian 09:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies' reply

My comments on the new procedure will come, but first ... — Freedom skies 20:16, February 1, 2007 — continues after insertion below

Sorry about interrupting you. I'm moving the discussion about your claim that "Tigeroo has reverted every single edit I have made" into its own section. Utcursch can work out with you if that really needs to be solved first. Please reserve this section for discussing my request to provide detailed and well referenced edit summaries. — Sebastian 07:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes

For the new procedure:

• (Tigeroo agreed above)
• I agree _{Freedom skies| talk}  09:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both! So, just go ahead and implement your agreed changes! — Sebastian 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

For the time limit: (If yes, please indicate time limit. If no, pls discuss above)

Progress and status

A couple of days

I'll be back in a couple of days to present my side and arguments. This is going to be exhausting and will neeed careful work, for which I need to just wrap up a couple of projects before I can devote time here. Once through, I'll strive to make every possible effort to work on this project. Thank You. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to start tommorow. I'll have my break from work in real life to engage myself thoroughly (and thorough involvement is needed) then. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Please feel free to propose different solutions in the Goal oriented issues table, or add new issues, if you like. There's no rush from my side, and Tigeroo doesn't seem to be in a hurry, either. Don't be afraid about the amount of involvement; we can just tackle the issues one by one, if both of you are fine with that. — Sebastian 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Don't be afraid about the amount of involvement; we can just tackle the issues one by one, if both of you are fine with that.

Actually I was afraid of just that, the amount of involvement. I thought a topic per day (or a couple of topics per day) would not suffice and once we took off I would have to devote myself to this project only. You figured out the reason of my procrastination.

If I could contribute to presenting a couple of issues per day that would be very well appreciated. Contributions that way are also bound to be more thorough and the fine details can be argued out. In any event, I will present my side in a few hours. Thanks for accomadating me and being so amenable. _{Freedom skies| talk}  05:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Half done?

I just updated the status column of the issues table, and it seems like we're half done. For several reasons, I would like to become less involved in this. How do you guys feel about the progress? It seems to me that you are doing fairly well without me breathing down your necks. — Sebastian 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a third party mediation and comments have been most useful. Could I request your continued involvement until it has been wrapped up. I think we are moving slow enough that this will not take up excessive time from your end.--Tigeroo 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your encouragement! I will watch this page a bit less closely, though. From now on, if you would like to draw my attention to this page, please drop me a short note by user talk or email. Thanks! — Sebastian 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we invite another mediator?

We're obviously not half done, as I thought above, since two of the resolved items have been reopened since, two more have been brought up, and none has been resolved. This is growing over my head, at a time where much of my attention is needed elsewhere. I therefore asked User:Utcursch if he would be willing to take over from me or share this case with me, and he thankfully agreed with both options. Would you both accept him? I did not ask what style of mediation he prefers; he may be less formal than what I tried. I would be fine if he doesn't go along with my proposal to describe edits in detail. — Sebastian 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Tigeroo agreed here. — Sebastian 23:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree _{Freedom skies| talk}  09:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both! I notified Utcursch and I hope he'll be here shortly. — Sebastian 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we close this case?

It looks like there has been no movement in over a month. Can we close this case? — Sebastian 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the new mediator??? Haven't seem him and kind of fell off following the page waiting.--Tigeroo 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Miscellany

Correction

Tigeroo added Buddhism in Southern India heading with two = symbols in the code instead of the required 3. Now it appears as though Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazni, Palas, Muhammad of Ghor, The Mongols and Timur are covered under "Buddhism in Southern India." Kindly replace the heading "==Buddhism in Southern India==" by "===Buddhism in Southern India===" till the section is argued out. _{Freedom skies| talk}  20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an honest mistake to me; I just change it. — Sebastian 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Change	Changed in edit (diff)	Reason given in issue #
Mentioned Islam's role in the decline in relation with Maha Bodhi, mentioned Ambedekar in relation with Islam, and mentioned Dalai Lama in detail.	[5]	#1: Dalits @ intro

I expanded the section with new quotes for more accuracy, and re-integrated the sourced information removed. Also edited the new quote about Islam to more accurately reflect what the source more fully says about the subject. I am sure there are other sources that can better illustrate the POV you want, but this source doesn't quite do that. Also the last part of the Dalai Lama should be moved more to the Dalai Lama section or the Buddhism and Hinduism section.

Change	Changed in edit (diff)	Reason given in issue #
Mentioned Quasim's contributions to the overall decline and provided additional instances and sources	[6]	#6: Decline @ Qasim

Reverted to last version by our mediator. Didn't see any new information or sources except the same old primary source and the other ones without a page number or give sufficient detail and that just duplicate information already mentioned from a more authoratative and exhaustive one.--Tigeroo 12:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The version you deleted had 54 notes. Compare that with the 49 notes in your version. You deleted sourced text, Tigeroo. You deleted additional instances and sections thereby making this entire mediation look like a bit of a joke. _{Freedom skies| talk}  20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo has reverted every single edit I have made

(This discussion has been moved here from #Proposal for new procedure because it was off topic and deserves a section of its own. — Sebastian 08:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

but first, consider that Tigeroo has reverted every single edit I have made. My edits and references were made to the sections in which Sebastian allowed editing and when I did my text was reverted by Tigeroo. I feel that the mediation process is losing it's meaning and no matter what is discussed Tigeroo will revert it back to his version.

I ask for my edits to be restored. Tigeroo has selectively mentioned only Hinduism and has removed Islam dutifully. He has removed references and sourced material.

If the continuation of this process results in only Tigeroo editing this article then I will chose to stay out of it completely.

Extending best regards as always,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what that diff is supposed to show, there are considerable changes between them. I haven't edited anything, except adding the "while" as was allowed on this page and editing the Revival section after being asked to see how it could be reflected in the intro. Restoring the BBC info after it was cleared, adding some external links and minor typos or wikilink fixes all appropiately labelled. These were after an extended while as well during which you commented on other issues but made no obections to the proposed.--Tigeroo 15:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The following list shows the edits we are talking about as of Feb 1, when Freedom skies complained. There had been only a harmless change by Kiore, otherwise it was pretty much still the same as it had been 11 days before, when I reverted his unexplained edits.[7] In the table, I marked all versions that are basically the same as that old version in green.

Since I reverted Freedom skies' unexplained edits I have been asking him to provide descriptive edit summaries. He started at least providing some edit summaries, but they were still not specific. I specifically described what I meant by a detailed summary on Jan 28, but I have not seen a single edit that fits that bill. — Sebastian 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

List of old history has been moved to /hist.

I hear a lot of frustration, especially in Freedom skies' contributions. The reappearing word "again" reminds me of one discussion in which I felt I had to repeat the same arguments again and again because they got drowned out by chatter about unimportant details. I think we all just got overwhelmed by the number of issues, and the length of the discussions for each.

Would it help if we focused on one issue at a time? Freedom skies, which one would you like to tackle first? (Given that we have a new mediator, it would be nice if it could be an easier issue, but I think Utcursch won't mind if you pick the one that's dearest to your heart.) — Sebastian 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

My frustration stems from exactly what you stated, Sebastian; "The following list shows the edits we are talking about as of Feb 1, when Freedom skies complained. There had been only a harmless change by Kiore, otherwise it was pretty much still the same as it had been 11 days before, when I reverted his unexplained edits." I explained using the discusion page beforehand and via e-mail and yet they were reverted. This effectively resulted in only Tigeroo having edited the article since the begining, Sebastian. You asked us both to work on the Quasim and revival sections, Tigeroo expanded the revival section outside of Ambedekar, and when I added information to it it was completely reverted to Tigeroo's version. Quasim's section as edited by me had additional sources and Tigeroo blanked all of it by reverting it completely to his version.

Since only Tigeroo's edits make it to the article I have lost most of my interest or faith in this process to be frank, but I'll participate nontheless. The reason for it being that only Tigeroo's edits make it the version and every single I make is reverted indiscriminately despite my notifying you via e mail and at the discussion page beforehand.

In any event, if the new mediator chooses from #1: Dalits @ intro (including the edits Tigeroo made to the revival section) or #6: Decline @ Qasim then it will address some important concerns.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, I admit I have been asking for it. But actually, I don't think it helps wallowing in the wounds of the past. Looking at the past is good if it helps to learn from mistakes. I, for my part, learned from some of my mistakes; I always openly admitted and corrected them.

We had some successes together, and some things didn't go so well. I don't think it is of any use at this stage to assign praise to individuals for the things that went well or blame for those that didn't. If we really wanted to find out who is at fault, it would take us a lot of time, and I think it's unlikely that we'd come to a useful conclusion.

That said, I have to take your concern that "only Tigeroo's edits make it to the article" seriously because it questions my neutrality as a mediator. If you really want to pursue this, I ask that we do so on a separate page since I would not be in the role of a mediator. (I added the older edits to /hist; that may be a good place to discuss that.)

I admit that I was partial against unexplained edits, but that's an issue of the past since both of you now agreed to do edits in small chunks and write detailed edit summaries that refer to each agreement.

For this mediation case, please let's focus on the future. If I had time I would focus on one of the issues you mentioned and see how it works with the new agreement. I'm hoping that Utcursch will show up here soon, and that he will find this agreement helpful, too. — Sebastian 08:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Freedom skies, like Sebastian says above, let's concentrate on how we can solve the problem, instead of digging up the past edits and conflicts. I've been going through the discussion here since past two days, and I feel that both you and Tigeroo want to improve the article. The conflict is not very serious and can be resolved soon, if we concentrate on resolving the issue. utcursch | talk 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Sebastian's pragmatism and would like to concentrate on getting this done ASAP. I hope we begin as soon as possible. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)