Talk:Shantideva: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by Torin93 - "/External Links re-added/ Because something is controversial based on someones opinion is not justification."
Torin93 (talk | contribs)
Line 45: Line 45:
It is the nature of the Wiki community to present information without personnel bias and bigotry.
It is the nature of the Wiki community to present information without personnel bias and bigotry.


I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not.
I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not--[[User:Torin93|Torin93]] ([[User talk:Torin93|talk]]) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC).


Torin93 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Torin93|Torin93]] ([[User talk:Torin93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Torin93|contribs]]) 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Torin93 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Torin93|Torin93]] ([[User talk:Torin93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Torin93|contribs]]) 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--[[User:Torin93|Torin93]] ([[User talk:Torin93|talk]]) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)




Line 61: Line 61:


I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Torin93|Torin93]] ([[User talk:Torin93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Torin93|contribs]]) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Torin93|Torin93]] ([[User talk:Torin93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Torin93|contribs]]) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->





==External links removed because "controversial"==
==External links removed because "controversial"==

Revision as of 11:25, 29 September 2008

WikiProject iconBuddhism Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Philosophers

page says...

--- Contrary to Tibetan biographies written about him, Shantideva became a king in southeastern Bangladesh, which has been shown through archaeological discoveries that record him not only as the first in a line of "Deva" kings who recognized the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest Dharma (or truth).


I am confused. Are Tibetan biographies contrary to the idea of Shantideva recognizing the Bodhisattva ideal as truth? What does Tibetan biographies say that is contrary? This should be provided on page.

I don't claim to know too much about Shantideva history, not very concerned with it. I came here to learn more, and was confused by the statement about being "contrary to Tibetan". What are these discoveries, what do they show that is contrary? All this needs to be made more clear or just taken off, as it is it does not seem to be that informative.

Thank you for you time, and all the best.

Clavio

Contrary... Bangladeshi King

I deleted this para, because it's the first time heard it, and there's no citation or anything. And I've just been through the newbie's guide to NPOV (heavy going), and I think it's inappropriate to be saying "contrary to X's view", without saying what X's view is. ---MrDemeanour 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The link to Shantideva.net hast nothing to do with Shantideva himself nor with Tibetan Buddhism either. His webmaster, aka himself Shan Chien Da Shi, lives in Spain and has been tagged as a pretender a year ago. Five years ago he started to prey, calling himself then Thera Karavika.

Shantideva.net offers information from the Shantideva Project _a charity orphan based, as if it was part of the NGO in question, although it's a way to promote a monastery in the U.S. devoted to Shan Jian himself.

I practice Buddhism and live in Spain, and also have relations with american buddhists, and there is no link at all of this website with any other order neither with the Ecumenical Buddhism. The called "avaivartika" order simply doesn't exist.

Please remove the site. I usually contribute in the spanish Wikipedia and don't dare to do it myself until anybody check my information. Erein

I followed the link, and it makes a lot of fuss about the supposed bengali origins of Shantideva, and the claim that the author of the Bodhicharyavatara wasn't the Shantideva from Nalanda. I can't verify these claims, and they certainly don't belong in the article; but it's wrong to say that the linked site has nothing to do with Shantideva. The track-record of the webmaster, it seems to me, is his own business.

I don't see any harm in the link, which is, after all, an external link. Accordingly I've left it in-place. MrDemeanour 16:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links re-added.

on September 29, 2009 07:05 158.18.197.40.

I added the link back to the main page. Just because something is controversial, shouldn't be the reason to remove material.

It is the nature of the Wiki community to present information without personnel bias and bigotry.

I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not--Torin93 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Torin93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torin93 (talkcontribs) 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) --Torin93 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



External Links re-added.

on September 29, 2009 07:05 158.18.197.40.

I added the link back to the main page. Just because something is controversial, shouldn't be the reason to remove material.

It is the nature of the Wiki community to present information without personnel bias and bigotry.

I could understand if the links lead to information that was so offensive that it could incite violence. They do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torin93 (talkcontribs) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links removed because "controversial"

On 13 March 2007 196.44.16.10 removed external links with the note "removed controversial external link".

I'm not sure that "controversial" is in and of itself a sufficient reason to delete external links. I'm going to archive them here in case we decide that they should be restored. -- Thanks Writtenonsand 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]