User talk:Langdell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for your note. I agree with you that Taoism has had a significant impact on these three countries and it would be good to reflect that. I'm not sure how best to do that, though (see my note on the Tao talk page). It seems to me to be somewhat cumbersome to include all those words in the lead sentence of the Tao article. Perhaps someone will have some suggestions as to an alternative. Sunray 05:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, and welcome to Wikipedia! For a new user you seem to be finding your way around Wikipedia pretty well and have been making some nice additions to articles. Here are a few tips:

Sunray 07:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Excellent Dharmakaya Intro

  • Hallo Langdell. Just a note to say that I love your new Introduction to the "Dharmakaya" article. Excellent. It's always a joy to see something "positive" and "affirmative" communicated of the Buddha's Dharma - rather than the usual suffering, suffering, suffering, impermanence, pain, suffering, non-Self, suffering, nothingness and more suffering - and then the goal of Nothingness!! As you will have guessed, I believe that type of nihilistic emphasis is so very distortionist of the Buddha's "real" teaching. Anyway, thanks for your very fine piece on the Dharmakaya. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to September 11, 2001 attacks

Your edits to the aforementioned article was reverted, as it was not cited, and was original research. Please do not use Wikipedia as a repository for original research. bibliomaniac15 23:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but you should seriously provide a source, or it may happen to you again from some other person. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jiva and Atman

Dear Langdell - thankyou for your input on the jiva article, however there is more than one opinion on what exactly the jiva is. Advaita schools equate the atma with Brahman, but Dvaita schools do not - they differentiate between the two. Similarly for traditions following the dvaita schools the words 'jiva' and 'atman' mean much the same thing (in most contexts - there are exceptions) so for the article to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy it is incorrect to show only one argument or the other - both viewpoints much be given and explained. Your edits sided heavily with the advaita philosophy only. Ys, GourangaUK 10:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Jiva&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Jiva is defined as 'The individual soul or divine within', 'The embodied soul' , 'life, vital principle, individual soul', 'Sentient living being. Embodied self.' It does not refer to the body, nor does it refer to a soul in ignorance (that is specific to certain traditions only and usually jiva is prefixed with another word) - it is very similar to the word atma. It is like the difference between saying the 'living being' and 'the self' in English - both are different phrases used in different contexts - but both point towards the same singular or differential reality of being. I appreciate your comments and have adjusted the article to show this much clearer than before. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

About your edit [1]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Regebro 11:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politicians and reports

Regarding your recommended video clip, all it says is that the 9/11 Commission didn't blame anyone. That was its purpose. That's why it's not the best source, and why conclusions of engineering experts are more useful. I don't understand what you think is so surprising about politicians being less than honest and avoiding responsibility. Peter Grey 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maspero

Perhaps you could add a footnote of a work that says Maspero's work is the most important. I looked around briefly in the works I have access to at the moment (Robinet and Schipper), along with a few web searches and couldn't find anything that suggests other than the fact it is one of the first works about Taoism, it is still considered the seminal work about Taoism. In my opinion (from looking at the book as it sits in front of me), it seems pretty scattered and old-fashioned. So I'm just not convinced as to its current importance, especially with new works that have recently come out. Hopefuly you can prove me wrong.Zeus1234 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You've convinced me of the merit of Maspero. I actually do have a copy of the book at the moment, but it is from the library. Perhaps I could photocopy it for you? Let me know if you want this to be done. Of course, I will have to look into costs as well.Zeus1234 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anatta

Sorry, but I have deleted the line you added to the introduction of the Anatta article since it seems to beg the question. Also it does not seem very helpful at this time when the whole of the Anatta article is a bit of a mess anyway. Perhaps you could re-insert it later in the article, reworded to NPOV.--Stephen Hodge 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Kundalini, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tao article

Thanks for your explanation. But I don't see how that passage can stand as it is. Consider the first sentence: "Today, scientists call the creative principle at work in the universe the ‘principle of self-organisation.’" Which scientists? What exactly did they say? At the very least it needs a citation. But more importantly, how do we know that what these scientists are referring to relates to Tao? There needs to be a link. Also, Tao is more than simply "the creative principle." So the wording of that passage seems fatally flawed to me. I will await your further comments before trying to fix it. Sunray 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

You're not supposed to add any templates to the featured articles. Please remove them, discuss your issues on the talk page, and you can add them after it's off the main page. Thanks. Zain 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Please do not add them while this is on the main page. Discuss your issues on the talk page first and consider letting another editor add the tag, keeping in mind that a great deal of consensus-building has gone into the article's current state. Savidan 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
please see my reply to your talk page comment here, Langdell. you may undo the change cited if you wish. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Langdell, when you wrote, "To define Islam as meaning simply 'submission' or 'surrender' is a subtle form of villification and distortion that puts into the mind of the naive the notion that Islam somehow requires 'submission and surrender'," what kind of reaction did you expect? There may be some who hope that it will have this effect, and I have certainly heard it misused in the way you describe - for another type of misuse, see the title of the movie "Submission" - but it also happens to be the most straightforward translation. What are we supposed to do, substitute a long-winded exegesis to protect readers from being manipulated by someone else? That would be propagating our own misinformation.Proabivouac 03:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian religions

You are absolutely right Langdell. Under no circumstances can Jainism and Buddhism can be considered as derivatives of vedic religion. Nastika was more often an derogatory term for those traditions who did not accept sanctity of vedas. --Anish (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Langdell, the uncouth and unconstructivr language that you've used in my talk page is totally unacceptable. If the issue was simply repetition of one sentence, you couldve done it yourself easily before hurling charges of vandalism. What's more, you've interacted with me only once and have the gumption to lecture me in my talk page about what you call, "decent behaviour" ? Are you preemptively implying that I am undecent or such forth ? That too on our very first meet ? The next time I see such language from you in my talk page, expect an admin call. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance

Hi Langdell, I suggest that you first try out for a consensus with IAF on points of dispute. I can see that neither of you have tried to discuss the issue out or reason out the points, on the talk pages of Dharma. This makes it difficult for an admin to determine on "who is disruptive." And admin action or intervention is highly unlikely in this case. Hope this helps.--Anish (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User IAF

Sorry, don't have the time to investigate his actions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gradual training

Hi Langdell -

I appreciate your kind and thoughtful replies to my talk page and the article's talk page. I desire to reply in a similar fashion and ask that you be patient as it will likely take several days due to obligations IRL.

FWIW, as indicated in the article's first footnote, the translation is based on Bhikkhu Bodhi as well as John Bullitt; but, I would definitely like to further explore additional resources (e.g., the so-called "reliable sources" of university professors, in case they might say anything of value [not bloody likely!], as well Nyanatiloka, etc.) before responding on the talk page. I'm fine, of course, with the "disputed" tag at the top of the article until we resolve this, however long that might take.

Also, FWIW, if you look at this thread on my talk page, User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld#gradual_training, you'll see that when this article was first conceived and initially incarnated (around 11/05/07) by User:Dhammapal, it in fact was called Anupubbi-katha. (Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the originally idea for this article was conceived on talk pages by User:Sacca back around November 2006.) Given the current disputation, I regret that I think it was I who convinced Dhammapal to change the article's title to Gradual Training (based primarily on Bodhi and Bullitt) due to such making it more readily found by WP searchers (though, evidently by your reasoning, erroneously!). After we further explore available material more deeply, out of respect for Dhammapal's initial intention, if our findings lead us to such then (as one possible option) I'm more than open to moving the current article back to Anupubbi-katha and leaving Gradual training for your own views.

If I may just make one request, is there any way we can combine (preferably chronologically) the last two sections of Talk:Gradual_training, as the first deals with my initial statement on this matter (Talk:Gradual_training#.C4.81nupubb.C4.AB-kath.C4.81_or_anupubba-sikkh.C4.81_.3F) and the second yours (Talk:Gradual_training#Kathā and Sikhā) -- this way our dialogue could readily continue in one thread.

Thanks again for your thoughtful dilligence. With metta,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I now believe you're right, I'm wrong. Kudos to you for your patience and thoughtful dialogue. Please see Talk:Gradual training for more info and thoughts about how now to proceed. (Hey, in my defence, I was initially basing my framing of the issue on the statements of another WP editor ;-) ) I'm very sorry for being an obstacle for a couple of days here and very much regret any negative feelings I may have caused. Beyond what's written on the aforementioned talk page, if there's anything more you'd like me to say or do to make amends, please just let me know. Humbly, with metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusive ethic?

In your user page. What does it mean? AppleJuggler (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job on Buddhism

Thanks for the intro rewrite! :-)   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. That intro is just someone's opinion. No sources are cited for it. We're trying to improve the text, & you're welcome to contribute constructively on the talk page, but please follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There are numerous opinions about what, if anything, Buddhism is, & Wikipedia must not take sides. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as stated in WP:NPOV, WP:NOR & WP:V. Then either abide by them or go elsewhere on the internet. If you persist in violating them the authorities are liable to ban you.

To summarize briefly. Wikipedia is not based on our deciding for ourselves what the truth is. That would simply result in enless revert wars between people with different ideas of truth. They've never managed to agree in real life, so why would they do so in WP? Therefore it is based instead on citing reliable 3rd party sources. Where those disagree it simply reports their different points of view & does not take sides. This means that we can reach agreement on what Wikipedia should say, rather than endlessly reverting each other. If you think an important point of view has been omitted or underrepresented, then you can try to find a way of adding it, not censoring all the other opinions, or you can raise it on the talk page & discuss how to deal with it. This is what we've been doing on this article for a while before you intervened, & what I above invited you to join in. It's no good your asserting that everyone agrees with you. You have to provide citations from reliable sources. Buddhist writers are reliable sources for their own views. They're not experts on the opinions of the other 300000000 Buddhists, though if they're prominent we can assume that there are significant numbers who agree. Therefore the main sources of citations must be scholars who have studied Buddhism as a whole, or a large slice of it. Then any Buddhist views not mentioned by those scholarly sources we've found so far can be added as lternative views. Peter jackson (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dharma

Hi. I've reverted to my edit, while keeping most part of the previous edits intact. Some important points about what, when, how and where needed to be added.

To you it may not sound "universal", but the fact is that Dharma arose in India and still is an quite Indian term, even though in larger morality I agree with you that it must surely one day transcend all humanity. Also, it is a religious term with all 4 Dharmic faiths emphasizing it. I agree that those wanting to know more about Dharma needn't join a Hindu-ized cult like Rajneesh; it's in agreement with all major faiths of the world. Thanks and good day. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Langdel, sir, if you may even try to engage in a dialogue on the talk page of the Dharma article, it would be far more constructive and inclusive. But I see that you do not explain your reversions on the talk page, and instead issue warnings on my talk page (seems habitual).

Please note that without any discussion on the talk page, your reversions are devalued and hence will not get much chance to be justified. A prolonged behaviour like this from you will be seen as disruption and ultimately as vandalism. I hope you are aware of that. As for your view on the so-called "disruptions" that I've done on Dharma, my edits mention verifiable facts and are well constructed on the article, and above all, they are explained on the talk page of the article. So I would strongly urge you to come to the negotiating table on the talk-page of Dharma and try to sort out any problems that you may have. In light of this, your "warnings" on my talk page do not hold any water.

Thank you. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jainism

Just dropped a line to give my thanks for your edits to Jainism. Cheers.--Anish (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)