Jump to content

Talk:International Art Museum of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

Hi world! We are new to wikipedia and learning to develop our page as we go. Any input is welcome and we appreciate a little time to fix the flags listed as we are new to this method of social media. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMA (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III doesn't have a wiki page?

[edit]

He is quite talented, owns two museums. Isn't he notable enough to have a wiki page? Yurivict (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of encyclopedia would this be if we gave every small time personality cult leader their own page? MrEricSir (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Yi Yungao. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Art Museum of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is not a self-claimed Buddha

[edit]

According to H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III, A Treasury of True Buddha-Dharm, [1] the publishers (World Buddhism Publishing LLC and World Dharma Voice, Inc.) distributed some of the initial manuscripts of the book in 2006. After reading the initial manuscript, great dharma kings and rinpoches in the world practiced dharma and recognized Master Wan Ko Yee (the name of H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III prior to recognition) as the third reincarnation of Dorje Chang Buddha. On 7 September 2007, during the 110th Congress, the late chairman of the House Committee on International Relations Thomas Lantos invited his colleagues to pay tribute to Master Wan Ko Yee who had been recognized by world-renowned Buddhist masters as Dorje Chang Buddha III. [2] This is the earliest public record (that I can find) which mentions the title Dorje Chang Buddha III.

Copies of the book were presented to the Library of Congress by the International Buddhism Sangha Association in April 2008. [3] It was after this event that the public started to know that the incarnation of Dorje Chang Buddha had been recognized. The U.S. Congress formally addressed Dorje Chang Buddha III as H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III in Senate Resolution No. 614. [4] Meanwhile, "Dorje Chang Buddha III" is a statutory name, according to the Office of H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III. [5]

The above evidence shows that H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is a recognized Buddha. By contrast, the LAist article [6] just said "a Pasadena man who claims to be the reincarnation of Buddha" without giving further details about when, where, under which circumstances H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III claimed to be a Buddha before the recognition. I welcome any challenge to the evidence that I presented as well as any evidence that supports the LAist article. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources that are independent of the subject - i.e. not by Yi or his followers. This book (reputable academic book) says that he "claims to be" Vajradhara. https://books.google.com/books?id=F0XNX3N1a2AC&pg=PA571 NPalgan2 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked out the book you mentioned. It is a collection of about 80 articles on Esoteric Buddhism. Only in the last paragraph of the article No. 55 (authored by David Gray) has a mention of H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III. David Gray says H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III "claims to be" Vajradhara and the claim is made in the book H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III: A Treasury of True Buddha Dharma (abbreviated as Buddha Dharma in the following).
  • However, according to the Congressional Record dated 29 September 2008, "Buddha Dharma is a book that contains testimonies and affirmations through written proclamations." [7] The recognitions and corroborations [part of testimonies and affirmations] are made by dharma kings and rinpoches from various Buddhist sects, who are independent of H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III and his followers. These recognition and corroboration letters are primary sources. Publishers made these letters public in the book Buddha Dharma [8] (recognitions start from page 42). Thus, the "Category 1 Recognitions and Congratulations" of the book Buddha Dharma is a secondary source.
  • In the Congressional Record dated 7 September 2007, congressman Thomas Lantos made the remark that Master Wan Ko Yee had been recognized by "world-renowned Buddhist masters as Dorje Chang Buddha III"; [9] this remark is another testimony to the recognition of H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III. Please note: this remark was made before the book Buddha Dharma was published in 2008.
  • I saw you modified the article International Art Museum of America recently [10], changing "an artist who claims to be a reincarnation of Buddha" to "an artist who is considered to be a reincarnation of Buddha by his followers". Following your logic, do you consider congressman Thomas Lantos as a follower of H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III as well? Sleepy Beauty (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional Record is a record of things put into the Congressional Record by members of Congress, sometimes because of speeches made on the the floor of their house, but more often just by getting permission to put the material in the Record. It is not reliable source for anything except for the content of the Congressional Record. It is not even a reliable source for the opinions of the members of Congress who put the information in the Record, because they frequently do so at the request of their constituents. Thus, we cannot use the Congressional Record as a reliable source for this issue.
The book the NPalgan2 cited is, however, a reliable secondary source, and is pretty usable for this article. Books which are collections of primary sources, on the other hand, are not secondary sources, they are simply collections of primary sources. What makes a secondary source is the interpretation and analysis of primary sources by independednt subject experts.
In short, your attempt to whitewash this article, which I assume is being made on behalf of H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III, is not going to fly, anymore than the previous WP:COI and WP:POV editing on this article did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, a secondary source does not need to be independent (WP:NOR). Also, could you please point me to the Wikipedia policies that require secondary sources be produced by experts?
"[A secondary source] contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." However, in the book cited by NPalgan2, David Gray made a subjective conclusion on what he thought the book Buddha Dharma was about in a few sentences, without any decent analysis or evaluation that supported his conclusion.
On the other hand, primary sources can be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary sources." Have you read any of those recognition letters (starting from page 42) in the book Buddha Dharma? Sleepy Beauty (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "your friend", and your changes are not going into the article, so you may as well stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Ken, You had reverted my initial edit; I came to this talk page to discuss my sources base on your request. But now you are asking me to stop? This is the article talk page, not your user talk page.
  • Let me redraw attention to the points that I have made earlier. First, which analysis in this book do you think that David Gray had made to support his conclusion that H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is self-claimed? Second, which primary source in the book Buddha Dharma do you think shows that H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is self-claimed instead of being recognized? Sleepy Beauty (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any edits you make not supported by reliable secondary sources will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that edits not supported by reliable sources shall be deleted. I want to emphasize that secondary sources are built upon facts, evidence, concepts and ideas taken from primary sources.
However, I do not agree that the Congressional Record is only a reliable source for the content of the Congressional Record. There have been several Wikipedia articles that use Congressional Record as their sources. In addition, Resolutions can be used as reliable references for straightforward, descriptive statements about what Resolutions say. But thank you very much for your opinions. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I want to emphasize that I've been here for 13 years and have made 250,000 edits, so I actually do know what a secondary source is, and your arguments are not going to prevail. That collection of primary sources is still a primary source, it is not a secondary source.

@NPalgan2: you have changed the content of this article while the discussion was going on, without presenting a secondary source that supports the statement "... considered to be a reincarnation of Buddha by his followers". Even before you changed it, the LAist article lacked primary sources supporting that H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III was a self-claimed Buddha. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it turns out that you have no real idea what kinds of sources are usable on Wikipedia. You're just rolling around, pushing your POV any way you can. Ain't gonna work. Give it a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Tower Defense game. The purpose of discussion is to communicate different opinions and find common ground. My intention was not to add certain content or promote certain ideas; but rather, non-evidence-based statements in sources shall not be stated as facts. As I have said before, the statement about "self-claimed Buddha" is not evidence-based, while the statement about "considered as a Buddha by followers" is not supported by sources.
Now that you cannot answer my questions about the verifiability of a particular statement in the sources and that we do not have a consensus, I suggest the article be restored to this version where there was no disputed content. What do you think? Sleepy Beauty (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, I think that "talking" with you is worthless, and that I will delete anything you add to the article based on your mistaken understanding of what sources are acceptable on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary regarding the supposed reincarnation of 'the primordial Buddha' is off-topic for this article, regardless of its sourcing.

[edit]

This is (or purports to be) an article about an art museum. As such, claims regarding the supposed reincarnation of one of the artists who's works are included in the museum are entirely off-topic. And this will remain true regardless of how such claims are sourced. I suggest that those advocating the inclusion of this material read Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, and forget about trying to misuse this article as a platform for material which doesn't belong here. It might be wise instead to find further third-party sources to demonstrate the the museum itself meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, because frankly that appears somewhat questionable. I have my doubts as to whether the article as it stands (minus the irrelevances) would survive another Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:403A:2FB7:2915:8DBB (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using biographical blogs to use sneering tone about leader

[edit]

Please don't interpret the website of the leader of this museum group in order to add sneering commentary about a living person. Is it his followers, or did he attribute this quality to himself? That's not our job.

If a reliable source says the group is considered a cult and a reliable source says his followers consider him to be such a reincarnation, by all means, add and cite.

Otherwise, cut it out. 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:55 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPalgan2, Your claim to neutrality to something not in a source is incorrect. That you choose to add something not in a source makes me question the neutrality of your motives. The person is living, see WP:BLP, see WP:Not in source, the information actually had to be in the WP:Reliable Source, and it's not (quote the line here, if you disagree), and re-read WP:RS to see how you get to interpret a blog to assign attributes to the group's followers.

By the way, I am using this for a Twitter discussion with Wikimedia foundation I had a few months ago. You've confirmed everything I said. 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:55 (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously yet another in the line of COI editors trying to control this article. NPalgan2's edit was correct, and if you re-revert, I will remove it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not your article. No matter how many people you chase away and get banned or blocked, no matter how you gang up on other editors, the source still does not say that.

Your willingness to add and maintain false information about living people in Wikipedia articles, coupled with your inability to discuss (yeah, I saw your block log) defines your motives for misediting this article.

Drop your article ownership. The sentence should be removed until it is sourced, the tag was appropriate. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that backs up the disputed sentence. Now, can we stop with the casting of aspersions? clpo13(talk) 22:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it reliable, did you add it? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, for a very disparaging remark about a living person, you can only find a 3-year-old article from a defunct website?

I would seriously like to know what COI you all have against this person? This isn't even his article, and you put this information in falsely, initially, and put a posse together to remove a "not in source" template, when the information was not in the source; now you can only find a dead website from 3 years ago?

Only 1 source, and half a dozen Wikipedia editors?

What is this really about? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it's primarily about your trolling. Why don't you come clean and log in to comment? Personally, I don;t think it's worthwhile to engage with you as long as you're deliberately hiding your identity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet here you are, engaging, adding another misinterpretation of Wikipedia rules, WP:OWN (no matter how big your posse gets, if it's not in the source, don't put it in the article), WP:BLP (living people get particular watch and care for their articles because of the inability of editors to carefully understand how much disrepute is caused by failing to follow this rule; a living person is discussed in this article, your ownership doesn't trump the responsibility to act with care, the statement should have been removed first, you maintained it without a reliable source), WP:RS (well, since it wasn't even in the source, again, you ignored BLP), and now you don't know what IP editors are. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "dead website" you're talking about. I added an article from the Pasadena Star-News here. clpo13(talk) 01:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pasadena Star News article is not a reliable source. The two authors were making things up. It went, "in 2011, Congressman Lester Wolff, D-New York, presented Buddha with a “World Peace Prize” for his accomplishments. The prize has not been given since, according to the award’s Chief Judge Father Sean McManus." But Sean himself was awarded the World Peace Prize on October 24, 2013; he was invited to become the Chief Judge on World Peace Prize Awarding Council around the same time. The Pasadena Star News article was written in 2015, so obviously the two authors did not talk to Sean at all. This is fatal enough to render the news article unreliable.
  • It may be the last time for me to leave a message here before I am officialy Topic Banned. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are the World Peace Corp Mission and World Peace Prize Awarding Council the same organization? I found two websites: http://worldpeaceprize.net and http://www.wppac.net. Only the second lists awards more recent than 2011, but it doesn't mention an award to McManus in 2013. In fact, the only sources for your claims about McManus are INC press releases like this. Given how vague "World Peace Prize" is, how can we be sure we're talking about the same award? clpo13(talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
World Peace Corp Mission and World Peace Prize Awarding Council are not the same organization, but this page has a detailed description about the history of the World Peace Prize and the relation of the two organizations mentioned above. This page records past World Peace Prize Award Ceremonies (I am not sure if it is 100 percent complete or not, but it is very detailed); item No. 23 is a record of the World Peace Prize Award Ceremony for Sean and several others, and item No. 21 records the Awarding Ceremony for H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III. So, we are talking about the same prize. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Pasadena Star News, I saw LAIst. I will look again. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, 'PSN' article is a RS, about him to a depth that establishes notability, so he can even have his own article. I got to see some of his paintings in that article, too. I'm sorry about that. What purpose does the 'LAist' article serve? None, but I'm assuming you article owners think it makes him look worse if there are a chain of citations. No. Readers will go to the first link, a bad one, and not get real information, or assume like I did that you were just a competing cult. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with removing the LAist source. It mostly rehashes the information found in the PSN article anyways (which it links to). clpo13(talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different infobox image?

[edit]

Acfording the "Tickets" link on their official website[11] students, military and senior citizens pay $10 admission, children get in free, and for everyone else it's $15. Showing an image of the entrance with a banner clearly legible that was apparently taken on a day when there was some kind of special free admission event is misleading. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the pictures we have of the exterior have the "free admission" banner, so I've solved the problem with a caption in the infobox

Cult

[edit]

A museum official was forced to deny the claim, how therefore is it not relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it we cannot have the fact there was criticism because it only housed his work, and this is why the accusation was made?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What RS say

[edit]

If a source is being used and says X we say X, not Y. If a source is not RS we do not use it, what we do not do is use it as a source for something it does not say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Oh and this [[12]] also says it was founded by him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Art_Museum_of_America&oldid=1207724440"