Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:43, 25 December 2006

India: History Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

This is a potentially contentious topic, and could turn into a slanging match among various forms of religious fundamentalism in India today. Please take care with the 'facts' being presented in these pages; as religious bigots of various hues are known to be active on the Net, insulting and blaming each other's religion.

Decline of Buddhism in China

The Decline of Buddhism in India is directly linked to the decline of Buddhism in China for several reasons ...

• Blockade of the Silk Road by the northern Uyghur and Tangut barbarian tribes kept Chinese Buddhists from freely traveling to and from India. This forced Buddhism in China to change. The older sects of Buddhism (Tiantai 天台宗, Huayan 花嚴宗, Consciousness-Only-School , Vinaya School ), who strictly adhered to Sutras and monastic rules, where replaced by newer sects (Chan / Zen and Pure Land ), who prospered due to their adherance to "meditation" and "simple faith". This "transition" took place during the 5th-6th centuries when Buddhism in India was in a steady decline.

(Anytime a religion is cut off from its homeland, it is forced to Change: Just like "Old Sect" Buddhism changed to "New Sect" (Zen) and the Judaism of the Kaifeng Jews merged with Confucianism.)

• Constant wars drained China of sorely needed funds. This forced them to raise taxes and also to sell Buddhist ordination "certificates" (to prove a monk's tax, work, and military exempt status) in order to raise money. During the great Tang, Buddhism became rich and powerful because numerous wealthy layman flocked to the temples and monasteries to purchase their ordination. This way they would not have to pay taxes to the state, nor keep the Buddhist precepts since they were not real clergy. It is for this reason that Buddhism surpassed Taoism in popularity, which had been a major political force since the Han Dynasty. With more clergy than civillians, the state lost a major source of tax money and army personnel. This severaly "alienated" the Taoist-based monarchy towards Buddhism.

(Because China adopted and adapted their own "less strict" version of Buddhism (for lack of a better term), many wealthy layman took advantage of the Sangh to obtain tax, work, and military exempt status.)

• The "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution" (845) of (Taoist) Tang Emperor Wuzong forced all Buddhist clergy into lay life or into hiding. During this time, followers of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism were persecuted as well. The persecution lasted for twenty months before Emperor Xuanzong ascended the throne and put forth a policy of tolerance in 847. But Buddhism never fully recovered.

(These layman brought the vengeance of the Taoist monarchy for trying to cheat the system.)

• During the late Tang and early Song Dynasties, Neo-Confucianism rose to popularity. The new Imperial Examination (keju 科舉) required young hopefuls to fully memorize the Confucian Classics. Those who passed where rewarded with high paying government posts. This forced some to forsake the Buddhist faith in order to advance their family's social status. Early Neo-Confucians spoke out against Buddhism because its egalitarian philosophies destroyed the proper "Senior-Junior" social structure of the day.

(Since Buddhism believed everyone was "equal", it was condemned by the Neo-Confucians because it went against caste.)

• During the Prime-Ministry of Confucian "Reformer" Wang Anshi (1021-1086), the state overtook Buddhism's "goodwill" programs (i.e. orphanages, granaries, hospitals, ect.), nearly driving the religion into extinction.

My Sources

• General Yue Fei ISBN 962.04.1279.6
• THE KAIFENG STONE INSCRIPTIONS: The Legacy of the Jewish Community in Ancient China (ISBN 0-595-37340-2)
• http://www.caiwenyu.com.br/07_como_Xing_Yi_ing.htm
• http://www.san.beck.org/AB3-China.html
• http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Song/song-religion.html
• http://www.chinavoc.com/kungfu/schools/cata_chj.asp
• http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1363

(!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Seems to be False Info

This article seems to reek of bias. Seems to be false information. Do all Indian Buddhists pertain to the view provided in the article ? I seriously doubt it. And the so-called Hindutva view is shared by many other neutral scholars as well. And where are the citations. Please, someone clean up the article. This certainly seems to a POV-pushing agenda. --NRS | /_M\ 13:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the name to a more NPOV title but the article still needs some fixing as you say. Gizza 11:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Yeah, you're right. The article certainly needs to be cleaned. I will do some research, get some sources and then remove the false stuff. --NRS | /_M\ 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

I just deleted a section that blamed the decline on Buddhism's ideas to be faulty. This whole article is a train wreak. Zazaban 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a connection between the decline in Buddhist patronage and Hindu resurgence under Adi Shankara. Of course, the section was extremely POV and worded in a partisan manner. I have neutralized it. Hkelkar 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It still seems a bit POV, as though it's talking as if assuming one is not Buddhist but not that one is not Hindu. Zazaban 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your position. Could you elaborate a bit? Hkelkar 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I still see a slight Hindu POV. Seems to be written s though one was speaking to a Hindu audience. I corrected my error above. Zazaban 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User Freedom Skies

Sunga: NPOV states both views must be expressed. If there is disagreement, removing both views is not NPOV nor informative. The Divyaxxx is the source of the persecution allegations alongside a Buddhist tradition, both are cited. Opponents disagree, ergo there is a cloud of doubt, and this is usually attributed to the sense that the Divyaxxx was "exaggerating" or "inaccurate".

Other items that also "disappear" in your revert need to discussed and justified. If you are replacing them with sourced information no problem, but right now they just seem to be deleted or replaced with othere non-sourced information. Lets call the article work in progress, so before making large scale changes lets discuss them, and keep the changes small and localized.--Tigeroo 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your diffs:

1. (Talk | contribs) (rv, shahis include both, zealous needs to go(NPOV), avatara is repeated twice in the previous version and such)
2. skies (Talk | contribs)(added new lines...........Tigeroo, you rv even the portion which are not under dispute. Kindly refrain.)

Both cases the description and the diff don't match. In the second one I don't even see the new lines added.

My diffs:(Talk | contribs)(restoration of unexplained blanked materials)

What am I restoring?? Your version diffs show a lot of stuff missing that has not been discussed. So far only the lead, qasim, sunga and Kanva sections pass muster in having been updated and fixed from the version we started working with.

I am a bit confused so let me know what's going on with this?? The way I see it my diff's remove nothing just add/improve or rearrange the article while your reverts ineveitably lead to a loss of lot's of material that needs to be fixed and improved not swept away. Maybe I am missing something here??--Tigeroo 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are, The avatara of Vishnu thing is repeated in your version, the report finds it's place in a list of Buddhism under political rulers, The Shahis for an extended period of time is just written as the initial Shahis, a bulk of meaningless drivel under Adi Shankaracharya (mostly repitition) and more ........ Condense, source, correct instead of enlarge and convert an encyclopedic article into a monstrosity. There are even amateur tiring grammer and styling errors.

Freedom skies 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why there is a tag indicating active editing, so that you can fix it and explain your fixes as you go. Blanking, blind reverts of other improvements and fixes, in one shot is not the way to go, take up one item on it's own edit it, allow some feedback and then move to the next one makes things easier for all to follow and conflicts to resolved easily. You don't even mark your reverts as reverts but as something else.--Tigeroo 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down

Hey guys, calm down please. This is not a battlefield. Remember, talkpages are meant for constructive discussions for improving the article. Do not resort to revert-wars unnecessarily. If you have any issues, you can just discuss it here and then edit the article as per the consensus. Revert Wars do not serve any purpose. It will make the other party even more stubborn. Try to find the disagreements and discuss it here. So that even others can take a look in and we can have a meaningful discussion for improving the article. So please, heed my advice and discuss your disagreements calmly. --NRS | /_M\ 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually tried to discuss my friend. Tigeroo has unfortunately limited himself to revert warring, something this article does not need. Freedom skies 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We discussed the Sunga, we discussed the Turk Shahi vs. Hindu Shahi, the possibble layout formats and all of those have been incorporated to mutual acceptability. I don't recall any discussion on the blanked material, and have actually been trying to get you here to take it up and explain yourself and listen to others.--Tigeroo 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tamerlane

Timur probably does not belong in this section as he was more central asian located and his conflicts typically ran with the other mongol empires, the cagathai, il khans, golden horde etc. and while he moved in the Afghanistan and Oxus regions, that is not really considered either "India" or even the "Indian sub-continent" and would fall under a Buddhism and Central Asia much more neatly. Correct me, if I am mistaken I am a bit weak on his goings on in the southern regions but I think it was generally away from the area in focus in this article.--Tigeroo 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits

I've done some copyediting, fixed some typos, and did a bit of re-wording. Probably the most controversial thing I did was change some "saka"s to "sakya"s. Since sakya re-directs to saka, I thought it would be best to keep the nomenclature consistent to the more recognizable version. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or here. Thank you. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PS the article so far is like walking into a palace (under construction). NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to help improve it. Just one minor change, I am going to change the sakya in quotes back, I linked them to saka, because thats what seems to make sense, in that it is referring to Buddha caste/tribal affiliation rather than the Buddhist sect which emerged much later. I agree the mixed usage can be confusing. Any ideas to fix this, it seems to occur throughout buddhist articles on the wiki --Tigeroo 04:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I followed both sakya and saka on Misplaced Pages and learned a lot. Forgive my ignorance! I think explicitly stating the difference in a brief manner would help some articles - I can help as well.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am not sure what that hyperlink should be, check out Shakya as well. It's almost more relevant, but there almost seems more info at saka, just not necessarily so directly relevant.

Citation templates

I've been told that one of the things reviewers like when promoting and article to GA or FA is the use of citation templates for all references. The references are also a bit jumbled. I didn't find a book entitled "Ashoka". Is it short for something? NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 06:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that I will help fix the references, if I can get more information about the books. I know how to do it, I just need an ISBN number, or even just the author or full title. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So I added an external link using a citation template. The content is an open-source book, so I used the citebook template. However, the citebook template has a spot for both the URL and the ISBN number, so it can be used as a reference as well.

The book is "The Edicts of King Ashoka". A cursory glance at it yields a lot of good information.

I find the citation templates pretty easy to use. You just cut and paste the code, then fill in the "form" to best of your knowledge. Not all fields need to be filled in. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 13:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert Warring

I request both User:Freedom skies and User:Tigeroo to please stop revert-warring. Revert-wars do not help anyone and if you excessively do it, you will unnecessarily get blocked and/or the page will get protected. Please refrain from quick-fix, ego-boosting reverts method. The best way to go about it is discussion. Currently, the version is Tigeroo's. I request Freedon skies to put up his disagreements with the current version here, before reverting. We can discuss, what changes to make. If Tigeroo disagrees, he too can put up his objections here, but don't go on revert-warring please. --NRS | /_M\ 11:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, use the talk page before going with major changes. I am not opposed to widescale changes, infact I am for it, there is a lot to improve but let's do this systematically and by concensus.--Tigeroo 04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually did think that Tigeroo was sincere but after I accomadated him initially he continued to push versions (including his last revert) that anyone can say are written by an amature. Did you hear about the manual of style, Tigeroo? Try considering it before you revert it to your version which disagrees with something even as basic.

Freedom skies 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this. User Freedom skies refuse to explain why he is blanking information, including cited material. Refuse to explain why he is reverting. Refuses to discuss the issues raised.

Just list the issues and we can fix them, focus on the material. Most of the material I have restored is terrible, I agree, I acceede that. My argument is that it does not merit being blanked just needs to be brought up to par.--Tigeroo 10:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you won't be bothered to explain yourself here, I made the changes on the page. I seperated them in each and every section and explained why I made that change there. You can consider them all as issues raised. Maybe now we can have a more civilized discussion towards improving the article, and limit ourselves to topical changes rather than mass reversions. --Tigeroo 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you guys explain your changes and unchanges here please? Thanks,Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this, user Freedom skies refuses to explain anything, and his changes rarely capture the edit desc. He blanks a lot of material including cited material. Can someone other editors please do an intervention. Issues have been specifically listed by section on each edit but here is a summary again for other editors.

1. (cur) (last) 12:00, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Sufis and Bhakti's - restored blanked paragraph,)
2. (cur) (last) 11:58, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Survival of Buddhism in India - Restored unexplained blanking of section)
3. (cur) (last) 11:56, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Philosophical divergence with Adi Shankara - restored blanked material. It's not cited, but neither is a lot of stuff here and it's relevant and can use improvement and expansions.)
4. (cur) (last) 11:51, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Mahmud of Ghazni - Restored citations that were blanked out and comments on incomplete citations)
5. (cur) (last) 11:49, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Muhammad bin Qasim - restored with more comprehesive and well cited material)
6. (cur) (last) 11:46, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Buddhism in Southern India - restored cited blanked material)
7. (cur) (last) 11:45, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Xuanzang's Report - restored cited blanked materials)
8. (cur) (last) 11:40, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→The Sungas - The sources cited call it Brahmanism, not hinduism. They make a distinction, can explain. Koenraad Elst is being paraphrased here, others who disagree with him obviously don't beleive)
9. (cur) (last) 11:34, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (LEAD restoring blanked cited material & Tagging material for sources.)

The primary issue I have with user Freedom skies is of blanking. The second is ignoring source or providing cited material for his basis. As I see it this article has a whole of lot of unsourced material, and to improve it we need to replace the material with cited information, not blank it because it is not cited, or replace it by equally dubious uncited information. Without verifable information based on sources this exercise is pointless.--Tigeroo 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again you lie, Tigeroo. I tried to talk to you, offer concessions and reach a conclusion, you responded by accepting my concessions while not accomadating my concerns at all, reverting at the pace of your choice, to a version of your choice which is full of Pejorative terms, inconsistencies, mistakes like an extra = in the heading (consistently you revert to this, why not at least correct it?), downplaying on moslem kings, steadfastly sticking to not mentioning Dalai Lana and Dharamapala when the latter predated Ambedekar, repititions of avatar of Vishnu.

I'll get to an overhaul which will mention additional monarchs, full view books and authoritative research papers in Links. That ought to take care of it.

Freedom skies 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll let the edits speak for me. There were three issues, the sunga's which NPOV requires statement of both positions, and I have always made the edits with incorporating the doubts, and when you edited constructively by quoting from Koenraad Elst. (Atleast correct his name when you revert) I welcomed it. I leave out the Turk-Shahi when you insisted, even though the Turk Shahi dynasty is the period being referenced in that sentence. We even have your layout and title headings right now. The whole issue is because you insist on blanking the article instead of constructively improving it. Please when you can bring verifiable reliable sources then come make edits till then refrain otherwise it smacks of vandalism because you are undoing other editors constructive work who can be bothered to make the effort to begin the task. This is not a solo effort. I have invited you to constructively contribute but all you do is blank by indiscriminate reverts. You don't even have the decency to call them reverts but disguise them under some other desc. Leave off the personal attacks and come to the table with specific content issues and let third and fourth editors weigh in with their contributions as well, there is no discussion on this discussion page from you.--Tigeroo 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see ....... Mass blanking , like your removal of the Islam section ? repititions, like your repeating avatara indiscriminately (thrice) to fake damage inflicted by Hinduism to Buddhism?

This is in addition to further acts highlighting your ignorance, Tigeroo. Your version has a "Financial and Social reasons" heading just before the " Ideological and financial causes" heading. This is in addition to the "Xuanzang's Report" being copied and pasted twice in the same article, once in a list of Buddhism under various governments. Why so bent on pushing monstrosities ?

Before I swept in for grammer and citation corrections and eventually took intrest in the article it was not the least bit credible. Judging by your childish insistance of letting the repititions stay and not correcting till I point you to I can understand why.

I'll see to it that it stays corrected till I overhaul it. I can see that outside of repititions and mistakes I can't count much on you, Tigeroo.

Freedom skies 04:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job!! Now that's called constructive criticism, something useful to begin to work towards improving the article. Atleast I can now understand and see some of what you want or are talking about and want to acheive.

1. I removed the duplicated sections.
2. Not sure what you mean by removal of Islam section, it's all still there. If anything I expanded them and included citations.

At least we are beginning to talk about specific issues that we can start to work on the rest.--Tigeroo 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

So the reference to "Ashoka" has been changed to "Merriam-Webster", which I'm assuming is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm getting the feeling that all this cited material is actually original research. Can someone elucidate? Thanks.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure pick an item, if it's one I've put in, I can let you know. I've tended to go ahead and put in the full book name, ISBN and even the relevant page number so that it can be crossreferenced and verified. This particular one of Ashoka is at the bottom in the listed books as references, the notes call it merriam-webster to shorten the notes. It's not been changed, there just wasn't any linked reference before. There is another book in Ashoka in the references but you can't identify what material comes form it.--Tigeroo 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I get it, your using the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of World Religions as your reference. Sorry about that. Is there any way you could find some web references that say roughly the same thing, since the statements are somewhat controversial? Just a thought.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you asked nicely :)The Merriam Webster on Google Books. Straight from the horses mouth--Tigeroo 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Deorkothar Stupa, the debate about Pusyamitra and the Divyadana etc. is not really closed. Please step in check that the section is balanced, to indicate there is a debate and disagreement in historical quarters. I am asking coz, I may have gotten a little caught up with the rv's and just wanteded an impartial third party review to assess if there is merit in user Freedom Skies concerns. Then again the general concensus is that Pushymatira was more of a one-off thing, subsequent Sunga's were seen as supportive, I wonder if we lost that somewhere by focusing excessively on the Pushymitra debate.--Tigeroo 15:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits

I've restructured a couple of paragraphs and taken out some words that didn't really make any sense, such as "alleged". The folks in question are not on trial here. They're all long gone, so it really just comes down to differing opinions of the historical facts we have so far. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I have added Friend of the Western Buddhist Order as wiki-link in the "revival" section and added it to the top of the external links list. I consolidated the external Koenraad Elst links to link to his website. I converted Tigeroo's reference using the citebook template. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also just removed unsourced material which I feel is written with a combination of POV and/or original research. However, several points in this article are potentially controversial and need to be sourced more thoroughly, in my opinion. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

The "The World Economy: a millennial" perspective cited for Jizya is used in a manner of supporting a theory of Aurangzeb vs. Buddhists. The article actually contains no mention of Buddhists. It does mention jizya, conversion of hindu temples, confiscation of non-muslim princely titles and a general abandonment of Mughal religious tolerance. It however makes no mention of Buddhism or Buddhists. Can this replaced with a more appropiate and relevant citation or source vis-a-vis aurangzeb and buddhism's decline.--Tigeroo 14:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Season's greetings and merry Christmas everyone. I hope you guys enjoy your holidays.

Now, The citation deals with the placing of a head tax on non moslem subjects, something which has very specifically been stated in the sentence for which the citation is used.

And the Islam section covers "But-parast" (Icon worshipper) and Ambedekar's views, not repeated anywhere else in the article.

Freedom skies 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the citation covers the head tax as applicable to non-muslims. The question is how is that mention in that section relevant to the books position on the contents of our article on Decline of Buddhism in India as the section makes no mention of Buddhists or Buddhism with respect to Aurangzeb at all. I don't see a But-parast reference in the section cited either but quite specific mention of Hindus and hindu temples. All I am saying is there must be some other more direct and clear cut citation that we can use rather than one that has to be stretched to be interpreted?? After all doesn't this article say that pretty much after Khilji it was all over for Buddhists anyway except for out in the Himalayas? Good and more direct cited source examples are the Mahmud Ghazni quotation which includes Buddhists as targets for iconoclastic zeal, and the Muhammad Qasim quote which directly and unambigiously mentions Buddhists under the Jizya or the manner of their conversions to Islam.--Tigeroo 20:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Season's greetings to you too, Freedom Skies. Thanks for the kind words. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"All I am saying is there must be some other more direct and clear cut citation that we can use rather than one that has to be stretched to be interpreted??"

How a citation recording the imposition of a head tax on non muslims came to be interpreted as "stretched " still escapes me.

Out of sheer courtesy and assumption of good faith I have provided additional references. The sentence in question is "In India, muslim rulers imposed jizya (head tax on non muslims) starting in the 11th century. Aurangzeb levied jizya on his subjects in 1679." for which the citation is accuracy itself.

Verify (The World Economy: a millennial perspective by Angus Maddison, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Development Centre. Seminars (Paris), page 108)

"doesn't this article say that pretty much after Khilji it was all over for Buddhists anyway"

No it does not.

"I don't see a But-parast reference in the section cited either but quite specific mention of Hindus and hindu temples."

Number 32 and 33 in Notes ought to cover it.

Freedom skies 09:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what the sentence says, more I know exactly what the whole page and section the sentence occurs in is about as well. The Angus reference has nothing to do with Buddhist decline. While the fact that Aurangzeb re-instituted the jizya is correct, using it as a source to imply that it contributed to Buddhism's decline in India is mischarecterization of the source. This article is not about jizya or Aurangzeb so if that quote or article quoted has nothing to do with the topic of this article, which is the decline of buddhism in india, then it does not belong here. Find some other quote that does address the article's purpose, this one is not a valid use and needs to "extrapolated" by guessing at what the writed wanted to say to accomplish that end.--Tigeroo 10:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My revert

Freedom Skies,

I'm planning to revert your recent edits if you cannot explain why you removed two external links, and why you performed a reversion without a satisfactory explanation in the either the edit summary or on this talk page.

On a more general note, it's important that sources and quotes aren't "cherry-picked". I find it had to believe, for example that the current quote from Dr. Ambedkar is his complete view on the Decline of Buddhism in India. It's also important to not give any view undue weight, or obfuscate reality.

NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of courtersy and in order not turn this into a more unamiable athmosphere, I am not going to invoke 3RR here. The issues I have your revert are:

1. Removal of cited material in intro that links revival Ambedkar and the inability to provide a citation for alternative material introduced.
2. Changing Brahmanism to Hinduism, the book cited makes a clear disctinction that hinduism of today is a syncretic integration of buddhism and bakhtism and therefore charecterize the vedic rituals of the sunga as Brahmanism.
3. Moving Xuanzangs report out of the chronological sequence. He comes before both the Adi Shakhara and even the birth of Muhammad.
4. Qasim is longer a discourse, but it is an inaccurate portrayal of his impact. His impact was small beyond conquest. He was welcomed by the Buddhists, and yes he did enact jizya and replace some stupas with mosques.
5. Aurangzeb, the quotes again make no link with the title of the topic of this article.
6. Erasure of the Adi Shakanras impact of integrating the Buddhism and "Hindu" worship and beleif systems.
7. Erasure of the Vasihnavite among other "Hindu" movements pressure and or social pressures upon Buddhists and Buddhism. There were no Muslims in the south to blame for the dissapearance of Buddhism. Quite simply there are many forces acting in unison that led to its demise not a one catchall that you seem to prefer.
8. Blanking of external sites.

Generally you not only inadequately describe your edits but also misrepresent them and show a strong lack of intention to conduct a dialog.--Tigeroo 11:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut and pasted from my talk page

My question about the "one historian" edit remaining unanswered, I'll assume good faith still in any event.

The recent edits carry additional citations and more information about the Ghurid invasion.

As for Dr. Ambedekar's views, they have been stated as found, his sentiments about a particular religion doing more damage to Buddhism in comparision to another religion which has not been known to support conversions can be backed up by more citations on request. With or without "cherry picking" is purely your call.

The links of "Friends of the Western Buddhist Order" or "Buddies of Satan" do not belong in encyclopedic articles. These websites are best left out of articles in any logbook of knowledge. And yes, if you dispute that try accessing the link. You should come across a "Sorry: We're Unable to Locate that Page" sign promptly.

Still planning on reverting ?

Freedom skies 11:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you asked about Koenraad Elst, I didn't see it. Like most people, I tend to look for new posts on a talk page at the bottom of the page. Please do that here and on my own talk page.

I would prefer non-cherry-picked everything, as a matter of fact. As long as it doesn't give undue weight. Specifically regarding Dr. Ambedkar, feel free to complete the quote.

As for the "Buddies of Satan", I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. However, you are starting to sound and act disruptive.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive users, Nina ?

Like the ones who won't even read a sentence before boldly stating "One Historian" ? or the ones who insist on putting blind links in encyclopedic articles ?

Freedom skies 14:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Indian history articles
• Unknown-importance Indian history articles
• Unassessed-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles