Talk:What the Buddha Taught

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This 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.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Gimello

Regarding this revert, by an IP who obviously has edited before, WP:WEIGHT says:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

You don't attain neutrality by deleting WP:RS; you obtain neutrality by adding relevant points of view. Gimello is a scholar of Buddhism, and editor of the "Encyclopedia of Buddhism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a RS doesn't mean it isn't undue weight. You have exactly one point of view and it gives the perception this is THE view of the book which isn't factual. 2605:A000:1327:4634:F973:7568:701F:DF12 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do some work, and add other sources, instead of WP:CENSOR what you don't like. Show us what othe rpoint of views there are. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is undue weight so it was removed that doesn't make it censorship. I don't have to show OTHER points of view for this to be undue weight. 2605:A000:1327:4634:F973:7568:701F:DF12 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should, to show that undue weight is given to this pov. But you don't present any other pov whatsover. This one is sourced by two WP:RS, by the way: Gimello and Taylor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

It is sourced to ONE: Gimello IN Taylor's book. That doesn't count for two. 2605:A000:1327:4634:F973:7568:701F:DF12 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three: Stephen Jenkins (2002), Black Ships, Blavatsky, and the Pizza Effect, p.82. In: Victor Sōgen Hori, Richard P. Hayes, James Mark Shields (eds.), Teaching Buddhism in the West: From the Wheel to the Web.I'll look-up th specific Gimello-source to. You're edit-warring and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think disagreeing with your POV is disruptive then you are also violating WP:OWN. This isn't YOUR article. Taylor quoting Gimello doesn't magically make it two sources. It is still one because it is Gimello's view not Taylor's. The fact that you only gave the name "Gimello" gave the erroneous perception that he was THE authority which adds to how undue the weight is of only having one view. "Black Ships, Blavatsky, and the Pizza Effect" at no point calls Rahula's book "Protestant Buddhism". He speaks of the coining of that phrase and then later details the views of the Buddha presented by Rahula but never labels them "Protestant Buddhism." For you to do so would be WP:OR. 2605:A000:1327:4634:F973:7568:701F:DF12 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor quotes Gimello approvingly. "Protestant Buddhism" is not some outlandish notion, but a mainstream scholarly point of view. See Gombrich. With what account or IP have you been editing before? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Taylor quotes Gimello approvingly." That's YOUR view which is WP:OR. I didn't say "Protestant Buddhism" is an outlandish notion I said having exactly one view is undue weight. What IP I have used in the past is 100% none of your business. You don't get to harass me because I don't allow you to steamroll your views into articles in violation of policy. 2605:A000:1327:4634:F973:7568:701F:DF12 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also McMahan (2008), Buddhist Modernism, p.50-52. And yes, Taylor does present "What the Buddha taught" as an exame of Protestant Buddhism. You're implying that this is a minority view, based on a source-count. That's original research. What's the majority view, according to which source, from which Gimello, McMahan and Taylor deviate, according to you?

See WP:SOCK why it's my business how you have edited before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]