This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 29 April 2017 (Undid revision 777871799 by Ms Sarah Welch (talk)Let's leave this to Godric; he's the moderator. This section is for discussion, isn't it?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 12:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Talk:Four Noble Truths

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Four Noble Truths (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• Robertinventor (talk · contribs)
• Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Robertinventor thinks that the Four Noble Truths article relies too much on scholarly sources; he thinks that these scholarly sources are mistaken on the four truths; he thinks that "traditional pov's" are excluded; and he thinks that this gives a wrong impression of the four truths. His proposal is to split-off an article based on scholarly sources, and retain the main article for "traditional pov's", which in his opinion are best preserved in this version of 10 october 2014; I think that this is contrary to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONCENSUS.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Endless discussion at the talkpage; several requests for topic-bans, one of which was admitted.

How do you think we can help?

Helping Robert clarify his arguments; help him formulate concrete proposals for textual changes (Robert does not want to edit the article himself).

Summary of dispute by Robertinventor

I believe the reason for this DRN is that I objected when @Ms Sarah Welch: removed my POV tag from the Four Noble Truths. Please note that this was preceded by WP:TPOs by @Joshua Jonathan: who deleted my first post in several months from the talk page, and then when @Farang Rak Tham: reverted , by @Ms Sarah Welch: who then collapsed it. This was followed by another attempt to get me topic banned by JJ, which lead @Softlavender: to warn him about trumping up a non-issue, and that if he persisted, she would request a boomerang, for his WP:TPO.

In my view we have two WP:SUBPOVs here. To demonstrates this, and the impossibility of consensus editing, see: evidence from editing history. Sutra tradition editors have given up attempting to edit now except for the Anatta article. They make occasional edit attempts there, but these are reverted by JJ etc.

There are few active editors remaining in the topic area with the SUBPOV of sutra tradition Buddhism. My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from readers, including previously active editors, and invite discussion. So, what I propose is to add POV tags to the four core articles Four Noble Truths, Karma in Buddhism, Anatta and Nirvana. I would like to leave the tags in place for at least several months to get some discussion going.

My current proposal is to separate out the SUBPOVs. This is already done in the religion topic area, for instance, Resurrection of Jesus has four versions according to WP:SUBPOVs. The idea is to use the current mature articles and the ones from before JJ's non consensus major rewrites in 2014 as starting points. I had some hope that JJ etc would agree to this, but we haven't achieved consensus. However I can still present it as one idea for the POV discussions.

Here is evidence that the western academics themselves recognize the two SUBPOVs. Here is a summary of some of the differences in the SUBPOVs.

My only wish is to add those POV tags.

@Ms Sarah Welch: The POV tags would of course explain what is POV about the articles. When you removed the tag, someone had previously edited it to remove its link to the section on the talk page where I summarized the POV issues. This is the section it originally linked to Short summary of the issues with this article. I would use a "SUBPOV" tag if such exists but can't find one. But an article which is SUBPOV, if it is not balanced by the presence of another article with the other SUBPOV becomes POV. Hope that is clearer now.

@Winged Blades of Godric: First, I'd use a SUBPOV tag if there is one. Suppose that you were a Muslim or a Jew, and felt that Resurrection of Jesus was POV because it doesn't mention the Islamic or Jewish views on the matter, and there were no articles yet presenting it from these perspectives - I think you'd add a POV tag but you wouldn't expect Muslim or Jewish editors to be able to work in consensus with Christians to make it NPOV. We tried that here and it doesn't work. But that doesn't make it NPOV. So what else can I do? If you have suggestions do say. We do need to attract editors from the other SUBPOV to the project and - maybe they will have other solutions. Also this idea that it can only be solved by two separate articles is just a proposal. if I add a POV tag then perhaps other sutra Buddhists can find a way to make a NPOV version of it, in collaboration with @Joshua Jonathan: when @Dorje108: and I were unable to do so - I don't know. And it is just my own view that such an article would be confusing - maybe they find a way to do it that is not confusing, and easy to read?

On Walpola Rahula he is one of many WP:RS in this topic area. However he was particularly notable, his book is perhaps the most famous one on Therevadhan Buddhism, it covers the four truths in great detail, and he spanned both the Eastern and Western scholarship being trained in both with a PhD at a western university, and working as a professor in a Western university from the 1960s to his death. Also, his book on Therevadhan Buddhism covers core teachings common to all the Buddhist sutra traditions because many of the Pali Canon sutras are common to them all. The 2014 article has numerous cites, and presents this SUBPOV throughout. . For several more cites on the third truth of cessation, as a truth that is realized in this life, not at death, see the section Third truth: cessation of dukkha of the previous mature article. The cites used there are all WP:RS for this SUBPOV. See also the section: Experiental knowledge

@Winged Blades of Godric: I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but to hopefully help a little, I've just added three new sections to show the POV slant of the Four Noble Truths article towards the WP:SUBPOV of western academic Buddhism. I could give many other examples of this nature, indeed just about all sections in all four articles are POV like this. See POV sections of the article. Any questions be sure to say.

@Winged Blades of Godric: I've just edited Example 2 Historical Development with some information about the authors on the POV of authenticity (which JJ has now moved to a new section Pali Canon#Attribution according to Theravadins), and also added a new section About Religious Sources which quotes from the 2008 discussion on the talk page that lead to the current guidelines on Religious Sources.

Summary of dispute by Ms Sarah Welch

@Joshua Jonathan: I am afraid this is a poorly framed DRN request. FWIW, on April 21, an admin RegentsPark requested me to participate and help out on Four Noble Truths article.

My dispute with RW is the POV tag, which is procedural. RW tagged it, but did not identify specific issues with evidence verifiable in reliable sources ("I don't like it" or "I like it" is not a good reason to tag). I did not remove the tag immediately, and asked for specific clarification. I gave RW time, and waited for a response. RW promised a response. Later RW declined to address my request for explanation and specifics for the tag. I then explained why I am removing the tag, then removed the tag. If RW wants the tag back, he must explain the specific issue(s) with evidence that is verifiable in reliable source(s). Alleging that the article does not include traditional views or scholarly views, without specific evidence, is inappropriate. It is also false, the article has for a long time include both for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: The "POV" tag is not meant to serve "My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from (...) and invite discussion." That tag is meant to help identify and fix specific NPOV issues. This is done by listing on the talk page the specific issue, with evidence of a missing or misrepresented POV from at least one RS with page numbers (more here). To invite discussion, try an RfC. You are welcome to create new SUBPOV articles in sandboxes and try to build support that they be made live. No POV tag necessary. I urge you reread Carol Anderson, Richard Gombrich, etc; because both I and @Farang Rak Tham already made a comment with concerns about what you claim about these scholars and the reality, last week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

RW, Sorry, your reply is not clear to me. I don't know what you mean by SUBPOV in 4NT context. You give no specifics. Nor RS page numbers. It is Kafkaesque, "I say you are guilty , but won't tell you why or what evidence I have". Tag it so we can discuss what 4NT article or Joshua Jonathan could be guilty of!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

RW, Once again, please note the DRN volunteer's comment: we can't sole source anything, that would not be NPOV. Similarly, JJ and the article can't ignore Walpola Rahula either. We don't. The article already explains Rahula's POV over a dozen times, and many more times with others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Winged Blades and DRN volunteers

Winged Blades: a technical question... how are we supposed to respond to the new allegations from RW linked to a wall of text on another page? For example, it isn't true that Rahula's views are not included in this section. Rahula is covered in para 3 and 4. RW's allegation that "So - there is no way Walpola Rahula's work can be used to support Spiro's idea that somehow the search for worldly happiness is wrong" is also a misreading of what the section is actually stating. The section is merely summarizing, in para 4, the different views of Rahula and Spiro (JJ: good work there!). RW: I feel you must focus on something specific, so DRN volunteers can try to help. Right now, I see a gap between your allegations and the evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades: Thank you. Your suggestions make sense, and I am willing to accept them in the spirit of constructive next steps. @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: you? any further clarifications desired? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Robert McClenon

RM: Thank you. My positions: The POV tag on the 4NT article would be inappropriate, in light of the diversity of sources it cites and the different significant views it already summarizes. If specific issues are identified, with source and page numbers, RW or anyone is welcome to edit the article, or we can work collaboratively on it through the talk page; so far, even after one of the largest walls of text and TL/DR case I have ever seen on wikipedia, I find no persuasive case here. I do not mind RW drafting one or more SUBPOVs. JJ is right that RW seems to be arguing for POVFORK, but I accept RW's freedom to draft something somewhere without disrupting wikipedia's live articles (I guess JJ wouldn't mind too). The article has over 200 cites, predominant number of which are Buddhist scholars. Some are practicing Buddhists (Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan traditions), some are not, as well as Buddhists who left Buddhism (e.g. Paul Williams). But these are all widely considered mainstream scholarship and Buddhist scholars. RW's "no rebirth and Buddhism" POV is fringe and isn't Buddhist scholarship. Rahula, e.g., accepts rebirth-samsara-dukkha-nirvana has been an integral part of Buddhism, so do all others. The article cannot be rewritten from a fringe POV. FWIW, this section of 4NT article does discuss the Western versus Traditional view on 4NT in Buddhism, with numerous WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A commentary on dispute by Dorje108

• Volunteer comment- Greetings friends: @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: . I will try to be brief. Walpola Rahula is cited often in many texts on Buddhism (both by Western academics and Buddhist scholars) because he is such a highly respected scholar and because he provides such a clear presentation of the traditional Buddhist POV. So it’s not that RW is relying on a single source; it’s more that Walpola Rahula is one of the more clear presentations of the traditional Buddhist POV. (When I was working on this article, I consulted many sources, but I often found the Rahula stated most clearly what many sources were saying.) I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist "assert" that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are “biased”, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are “unbiased.” Therefore, by this logic, the Dalai Lama (for example) as a source should be regarded carefully (as biased), but a Western scholar is not biased. Therefore a presentation or POV by a Western scholar should be given more weight. What I think RW is suggesting (and I agree with this suggestion) is that where there are different points of view in presentation of a topic (whether among different Western academics, or between Western academics and Buddhist scholars), that both POVs should be presented. What I encountered repeatedly in my discussions with JJ (from years ago) and what I have observed in recent discussion, is that when encountered with different POVs, both Sarah and JJ insist that one POV is valid (not biased), and the other POV is not valid (biased). Another problem I observed was that JJ seemed to be trying to write a definitive article on the Four Noble Truths. In other words, he seems to be taking on the role of an academic himself, in deciding what is correct and what is not correct interpretation of Buddhist teachings. Apologies for the length of this post. I am sure everyone involved has the best intentions, and we all have our own personal biases. Also, this is a vast topic, so it is not easy to summarize. But in brief I agree with RW’s point that the current article is not written from a neutral POV (for reasons stated above). I hope this helps. Best regards Dorje108 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• (note to volunteers: should this part be moved up, as Dorje108 is not a DRN volunteer?); @Dorje108: It is always a good idea to include diffs with accusations and when you cast aspersions.

You accuse, "I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased."

"Continually insist" was a poor choice of words. No offense intended. More comments below. Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked the Talk:Four Noble Truths, its archives, and the talk page of Project:Buddhism. I fail to see the support for your accusation. If you would kindly provide several diffs, to support your JJ and I "continually insist" language, we can examine the context and clarify any misunderstandings and associated dispute. For the second part, you too fail to provide a specific WP:RS, with page numbers, that states a POV different than the various POVs already summarized in the article. Without specifics and evidence, allegations cannot be cross examined with appropriate context and perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings @Ms Sarah Welch: - I just read a comment of yours regarding Walpola Rahula as a source on a talk page; but I am having trouble finding the talk page again. (I think it was a sub-page of Robert.) I am looking for the page now. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dorje108: Please take your time. It would be kind of you, and decent, if you would strike the "poor choice of words" containing phrases or sentences you are now unable to support with diffs, even if you choose not to apologize and you choose not to promise that you will never accuse someone of "continually insisting of something" without evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarah: Here is an example of what I was referring to. This is your recent statement on Robert’s talk page: “Rahula's interpretations and expositions in English are one of many, but Rahula is involved. In more ways that just theology. Rahula's or such authors need to be carefully considered given the COI/Primary. Even Theravadins disagree with him, leave aside Mahayana / Tibetans / Zen / etc. So, what should wikipedia do!? The best we can do is what many editors and admins have been suggesting to you... rely on multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars who are one or two steps away from the numerous translations and interpretations of Suttas out there. ” Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Robertinventor&diff=prev&oldid=776575916 - So here you are contrasting “Rahula and such authors” who need to be “carefully considered” vs. “well respected, highly cited scholars”. To me this is an example of bias against Buddhist scholars who were not trained in the West. Rahula happens to be a “well respected, highly cited scholar” who was trained in Sri Lanka. Dorje108 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you understand the word "bias" means "prejudice, usually unfair". The above does not support your absurd allegation, "continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased". It explicitly states, Rahula needs to be carefully considered, as well as those in multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

As I said above, I am not acting as the moderator, and am not a principal party, but am exercising my right as an editor to comment. I haven't read the detailed history. I tried to read the statement by User:Robertinventor and found it to be too long, difficult to read. However, if I understand it, I think that he may be right about one thing. That is that Buddhism should be primarily presented as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources. I am not a Buddhist; I am a Christian. As noted, Christianity is presented primarily as it is seen by Christians. Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity are discussed, but are not the primary way that Christianity is presented. Buddhism should be presented primarily in terms of what Buddhist scholars interpret as the teachings of Gautama Buddha, not what non-Buddhist Western scholars say about the teachings of the Buddha. The only real difference is that Buddhist teachings are based primarily on what the Buddha taught during his long ministry, while Christian teachings are based primarily on what was expounded about his teachings shortly after his short ministry. There are many Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources, just as there are many Christian scholars who qualify as secondary sources. Maybe that isn't what is in dispute. If so, then the editors need to clarify the issue. Other than that, the statements by Robert Walker are too long, difficult to read. Maybe User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Ms Sarah Welch can at least state concisely what their positions are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Four Noble Truths discussion

•  Note to participants: Please read User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules and ensure that you comply to the rules. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Filer note Robert will need more time than 24 hours: "I've got a lot on here, may not check in for a while. Things get easier here middle of next week for me. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)" diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer reply Fair enough. I'd want Ms Sarah Welch to file her opening summary above or state if she doesn't wish to participate in the discussion. She's given 24 hours from my last notice to do so. Robert is given 72 hours to file a statement above. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Yashovardhan: Please be fair as a volunteer, and not order around giving one side 24 hours, the other 72 hours. User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules is your own personal page. Did you create these rules on your own? Do you have a link to "wikipedia community agreed" DRN guidelines for DRN volunteers, and content editors? If you wish to mediate in this matter and thereby contribute to improving wikipedia, I urge you to review the edit history of the last 1000 edits of the talk/article pages, read the archives 2, 3 and 4, as well as the current talk page. It is a wall of text, but it will give you the context of who the disputing parties really are, and what the issues have been. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Withdrawn As per doubts raised by Ms Sarah Welch, I withdraw from this case with all due respect to all participants. I'll post on the talk page for another volunteer to handle the case. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer response to Sarah @Ms Sarah Welch:

1. firstly, there exists no compiled set of rules for DRN. The rules are roughly scattered around the notice board top and other places linked. I'd gone through and compiled all these points into my user space for the ease of disputing editors.
2. secondly, I won't go through 1000 edits just to know what kind of person you are. I'm neither required nor supposed to do so.
3. lastly, you and the filer both had asked me to provide extra leeway to Robert which I did. You had been served proper notices and were online to receive and reply to those. This, giving you any extra leeway was not necessary.

I've withdrawn from this case anyway and another volunteer will take over. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment--I am taking over as the moderator.Winged Blades 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer comment--Both the parties are hereby allotted a stipulated time of 72 hrs. to reasonably summarize/alter their opinion or to decline participation.Thanks!Winged Blades 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment-I see both the parties have clarified their stand.And am currently looking on the matter.At the same time,I will request you to not reply each-other back unless I ask someone to clarify his/her position.Thanks!Winged Blades 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment-@Robertinventor:--A POV tag is not meant to get comments from readers and invite discussion.We have WP:RFC for that.Primarily if your views could be summarised(??) as that currently present in User:Robertinventor/Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal,I am afraid that is not a very good piece of policy-based writing.I may be wrong but I think your points are mainly derived from a lone souce- Walpola Rahula.Anyway, can you please provide a list of references that suport your point of view.I seem to have missed that.ThaWinged Blades 03:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--Regrets for being off about a day.I am currently looking into this.Winged Blades 15:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--I would advice all of you to kindly refrain from engaging with each other here.And please don't reply in other's sections.Winged Blades 15:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--I have to regretably say, the evidences against the accusations in User:Robertinventor/DRN Evidence and supplementary information#POV sections of the article look far too much.I am sorry if I am a bit harsh but my observation goes as follows:--

• That each and every phrase/idea has been quoted to the proponent and nothing is stated in WP's voice looks good to me and not some evil editorial ploy.Furthermore in the Theravadan section Rahula has been already quoted once.
• Somewhere down the line I find you stating-- why sutra tradition Buddhists find these articles POV--that's a pretty non-sense argument at it's best.Avoid invoking elements of own WP:POV and mixing them with some WP:OR.
• If you want the article to cover the scape only from the viewpoints of Rahula and a few like-minded scholars, you could be thinking on the wrong lines.
• At Four_Noble_Truths#Historical_development you are permitted to add a contrary view-point by the Theravadian scholars.(may-be in a line or two.)
• On the point of WP:SUBPOV and forking the branches, that seems like a good idea.I believe, launching an RFC and seeking the opinion of the un-involved editorial community at large is probably the best way out on the issue.
• As a side-note, please try to be as concise as possible..That you want to include more non-Western views is not an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, the fact is that walls of text don't help always and the length and sheer volume of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're seeking. Winged Blades 15:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment--At the same time, Ms Sara Welch and Joshua Jonathan is advised that per this RFC and Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area#Religious sources --Rahula and Bhikkhu Bodhi may be considered WP:RS except if tdiscusssses matters concerning its personal connection with the subject matter.And I don't primarily see any bane to opoose RI so strongly in adding a few Buddhist sources to make and back up a few traditional claims/inferences in the article qwith relevance to WP:WEIGHT.But while I say this,I admit Rahula's views are fairly present in the article.Hence,WP:WEIGHT!Winged Blades 16:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by JJ: @Winged Blades of Godric: thank you for your concise comments. I don't object to using Buddhist sources an sich; as a matter of fact, I myself added several quotes by and references to Walpola Rahula, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu; and also quotes from the sutras.

What I do object to is the idea that those Buddhist sources stand in strong contrast to the scholarly sources; they don't. Robert thinks that the release of dukkha is the sole goal of the Buddhist path, and that the end of rebirth is not a/the goal. He thinks that "ending rebirth" is a western scholarly re-interpretation, despite more than a dozen references + quotes (section "ending rebirth, note "Moksha", note "samudaya", note "Samsara", note "Nirodha"), from both scholarly sources and Buddhist sources, which say that the Buddhist "goal" implies both. To compare:

• Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta : "But as soon as this knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"
• Bhikkhu Bodhi (2011), The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering, p.10: " elimination of craving culminates not only in the extinction of sorrow, anguish and distress, but in the unconditioned freedom of nibbana, which is won with the ending of reapeated rebirth."
• Keown (2009), Buddhism, p.65: "The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to put an end to suffering and rebirth."

Robert is persistent on this personal pov of him; his proposal for a pov-fork is to split off all the scholarly statements and info into a separate article, and revert the main article back to his preferred version. That's not an option.

Yet, you propose to do an RfC on forking "the branches"; given the above, what do you mean with "the branches"? A main article, giving an overview (compare Jesus, which gives "an overview of all perspectives"), and a subsidiary article with specific Theravada views (compare Jesus in Christianity)? Or something different (compare Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus)? A fork with the sole aim to present Robert's personal pov would not be a subpov, but a povfork. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by JJ to Robert McClenon @Robert McClenon: I see your point here, but I do not fully agree with you. We do not " Buddhism primarily as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources"; we use secondary sources to present Buddhism as it seen by Budhists; in this, we do not restrict the sources to Buddhist scholars alone. The prime question is: do those sources give a reliable presentation? In addition, we also present scholarly studies on the history of Buddhism. After all, present views from within a religion can be different from past views; we do not exclude such a topic if there are no (reliable) sources by Buddhist scholars. To compare: for an article on the history of Christianity, we do not restrict ourselves to Christian historians, nor present only present-day views from Christians.

NB: Anderson and Batchelor are Buddhists; so are Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Making a distinction between Buddhist and non-Buddhist scholars won't solve Robert's problem with the ending of rebirth. See Bhikkhu Bodhi on rebirth and Thanissaro Bhikkhu on rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raheja Developers

Procedural close.It is not a suitable topic for WP:DRN.Please move to WP:ANI to address the grievances. Winged Blades 09:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:MrOllie#Why.3F

Procedural close. No discussion. We can't take cases where there has been no discussion. Please see WP:DISCFAIL for options on what you can do. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020#RFC_Jeremy_Gable_as_a_candidate.3F

The parties are having an active RFC on the talk page on the matter. Winged Blades 17:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory#Spirit cooking and leaked FBI document (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Terrorist96 (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Eggishorn (talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Objective3000 (talk · contribs)
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute on whether or not to include the origin of theories mentioned in the article. The article mentions conspiracy theorist claims of things such as satanic ritual abuse, pedophile symbols used in company logos, and handkerchief codes. However, the article fails to mention the origin or the reason behind these claims, except for the handkerchief codes claim. It explains that the handkerchief code claim arose from "a widely-cited email mentioning a handkerchief with a "pizza-related map" however excludes any explanation for the satanic ritual abuse claim and pedophile symbols claim. This leaves a reader wondering whence the claims arose and any explanation of their origin is being opposed on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Participated in good faith discussion on the talk page to understand users' objections to including the explanations. Rebuttals ranged from asserting the source as unreliable (though could link to no RSN consensus indicating as such), and avoiding giving the claim any explanation so as to avoid lending it legitimacy. Though no WP policy could be cited for objections raised despite repeated requests.

How do you think we can help?

Please determine if statements included in reliable sources like the NYT can be included in the article. And if not, what specific WP policy supports their exclusion.

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Summary of dispute by Eggishorn

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

Summary of dispute by Objective3000

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document discussion

•  Volunteer note: there's considerable discussion on the talk page for a dispute here. Filer is required to notify all concerned parties about the dispute on their talk pages individually. Optionally, the template {{DRN-notice}} could be used for this purpose. All participants must file a statement above within 48 hours of notification in at most one paragraph. Failure to do so will be taken as an indication that the editor does not wish to participate in this discussion. Participation is completely voluntary though. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I pinged them all on the article's talk page, but I'll post on each individual's talk page as well.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party has notified the other parties on their talk pages. It should be noted that participation here is voluntary. It should also be noted that this topic is subject to ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions. Also, no reliable source has attached any value to any version of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so the only question is how to report on debunked statements and the fallacious backstories behind them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you for seeing the distinction. My intent is to solely include information on the origins of the theories so as to explain why they were claimed to begin with. I have no intention of arguing in favor or against the theories themselves.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO this has no merit, the article cannot use bad sources to try to explain or normalize a conspiracy theory. TheValeyard (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you please link to RSN consensus that says The New York Times, Snopes, and The Inquisitor are "bad" sources? Thanks. Also please note that the handkerchief code claim is explained using the same NYT article I am trying to use.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Bhikkhu Bodhi 2011, p. 10. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBhikkhu_Bodhi2011 (help)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards