User talk:Sacca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Gautama Buddha, General Buddha, etc.

Hi Sacca - It was an excellent communal effort! Thanks for your support throughout and kind words. Regarding Buddha (general) -> Buddhahood, it certainly looks like it is heading in that direction, and I would support it at this point. Personally, I'm inclined to await a reply from Rudy but if someone else were to initiate a re-vote I would not object and would participate. I hope you are happy and well. Best wishes, as always, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Larry and I gathered many more facts on talk:Buddha (general), and we feel it is time to vote again. Both Larry and I now favor "Buddhahood", which was one of your options in the first place, but we feel it would be better to alert all voters. — Sebastian 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year 2008 !

Hi Sacca - just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year and thank you for all your splendid WP contributions in 2007 (and before!) ! (Is New Year's celebrated wherever you currently are?) May our efforts this year on WP be found to be valuable and, if we're lucky, mangled by others less often :-) Best wishes for your good health and happiness, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said! And thanks for the good advice. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] atthakavagga

Hi Sacca - Nice job! It looks great! Well done. - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nun

Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sundaytimes.lk/060903/funday/OurHeritage.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My message to Beijing 2008!

[1]

Here is my gift for you. Please support Tibet and Tibetan people. Please share this image to your friends. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pali Canon

There was no "previous agreement". I simply left things for a time while I collected material & considerd its implications. Here's some material from WP:NPOV:

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

All Wikipedia articles ... must be written from a neutral point of view ... representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views ... This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles ..."

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

  • "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

This last quote is paraphrased from Mr Wales himself.

So I think the procedure we should be following in cases of difference of opinion is something like this.

  • First give the view(s) given in the "commonly accepted reference texts". In principle give them the preponderance of space. Do not, however, assert that they are the majority without an explicit statement in a reliable source. (This is stated in WP:Reliable_sources.) Instead, ascribe them to the reference text(s).
  • Then give any other views espoused by "prominent" scholars.
  • This I can't find in the guidelines, but it seems logical to me. On questions of Buddhist teaching & its interpretation, as distinct from history, we are presumably trying to report what Buddhists believe. By analogy, this should cover all "significant" views within Buddhism. Therefore, by analogy again, we should add any other views of prominent Buddhists, that is, those not already covered by scholars. The reliable sources guidelines say secondary sources should be preferred to primary, ie scholars to Buddhists.

This is what Ive tried to do here, giving priority to standard reference works. I admit I'm not entirely happy with some of the results myself. The scepticism about the relation betwenn the 4th Council & the present-day Canon seems rather excessive to me, & if you can find a recognized reference work that gives a different view please put it in. Nevertheless we have to follow this procedure to maintain npov. We certainly can't do it by giving detailed accounts of the scholars you happen to like & brief mentions of the others. That isn't npov. The only major decision you have to make is on the amount of detail. Have a goopd look thro' my subpage & decide whether you really want all that in there. If you insist, we'll do it that way. Otherwise it has to be something like the present way. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)