Template talk:Buddhism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please see Talk:Buddhism for some comments about this template. - Nat Krause 17:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Blue background

This one is hard to read. Is there any specific reason the background is blue? — Sverdrup 15:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. I'm partial to blue-green shades, but certainly not at the cost of legibility. I'm not sure whether this is governed under the color-reservation system at Wikipedia:Infobox, but if not, anything goes...

Are there any colors with which Buddhism is associated, like Islam is with green?कुक्कुरोवाच 15:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I updated the colors and layout some, based on Template:History of China. I think it's a bit more readable and aesthetically pleasing, but feel free to edit mercilessly :-) --Diberri | Talk 01:06, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Buddhist meditation

I removed Buddhist meditation from the top of the template. It's an important subject, but a vast one, and the existing article is extremely stubby. I don't think it's a good idea to have it in the template until it has a much broader scope. - Nat Krause 05:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetization

Ah, I'd alphabetized the list after it had taken me a little time to find "Texts". I'd nearly gone to add Buddhist texts myself. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 10:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I accidentally screwed up when creating a new template based on this one, and replaced this one by the new one. I immediately reverted the change; this was not intended as vandalism.

Need improvement

Someone who know more about Buddhism should help improve this template. Templates of other religions Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism are all well organized except Buddhism. Someone please improve this template. Janviermichelle 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please check here Template:Buddhism3. Working on a new and better template. Please help.Janviermichelle 11:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old one, in your estimation? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot more informative now than it used to be. The only major improvement I can think of is a better picture. The present wheel is rather grainy. --Tydaj 13:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the photo with one I created. Please let me know your thoughts... --thedOnut 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It contains more links; I'm not sure that really makes it more informative. The tradeoff is that it takes up a lot more space. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I know.. you're right. It takes up a lot more space. But other religions are also using about-the-same-size templates, so... people might think that kind of template helps. And I feel that it helps (especially for the people who are new to buddhism)Janviermichelle 07:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone improve this template? Check Template:Christianity and you'll find it really helpful. I'm not sure this template would help people who're looking for "what the buddhism is". I tried to improve this template and... anyone (who knows buddhism well) please add/edit/delete categories or rearrange/redistribute the links. Template:Islam also gives me a big picture of how to navigate the huge islam-encyclopedia. Janviermichelle 07:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Why the wheel? How about lotus? Janviermichelle 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Change it! That's what being bold is all about. Netscott 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the photo with one I created. Please let me know your thoughts... --thedOnut 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the wheel because it is recognizable and actually useful as an icon, whereas this symbol was made up for Wikipedia. (Similar to how I prefer the crescent for the Islam template, but people are way too whiny about that one.) Ashibaka tock 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this symbol is okay. I personally don't like the wheel... though my parents are buddhists and I've visited tons of south korean temples when i was a child, the wheel is not familiar to me. Janviermichelle 17:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess a swastika would seem inappropriate ...—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding template

how do I add the template to a page? The Sakyamuni Buddha page doesn't have this template...

What symbolizes Buddhism

Is there any symbol or picture that could symbolize buddhism and satisfies all (or most) sects of buddhism? it could be the wheel, lotus, swastika, or something else. - Party A

they do have a wheel ON a lotus - Party B

The most common symbol in the Buddhist world, I suppose, is the image of the Buddha himself, as seen in the familiar Buddha statue. Apart from the image of a person, the next most common symbol, in my experience, is most likely the swastika. If we consider this to be inappropriate for use here, the dharma wheel, which we have been using, is quite common, and it was adopted as an official symbol by the World Fellowship of Buddhists. However, the Donut's Buddha-in-lotus image is also quite nice; I've never seen anything quite like it before, but it combines two very traditional symbols: the Buddha image and the lotus.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Buddha-in-lotus image is quite nice. I think the statue of Buddha itself (including the one in the lotus) is the most relevant. religion facts. Janviermichelle 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The oldest representation of the Buddha is a Bodhi tree (the Buddha himself gave permission to use the Bodhi tree as a representation of himself - in his absence that is). Also Bodhi leafs are also quite popular. In India some of the rockcave-monasteries of Ellora have door-openings in the shape of a Bodhi leaf, so also the Bodhi leaf is an old symbol.Sacca 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nat, thank you. I remember reading with you in July, about how we were on the wheel of Buddhism and how "we" needed a new one. So it came to me to outline together. I love creating simple images! Frankly, I'm so well received by everyone! Thedonut 02:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

headings

Bold face of the headings are not showing up?

They do with meSacca

They do with me as well! <|:-)

Tripartite

I removed the mention of tripartite and now the link is again called schools of buddhism since that term is more clear, and the link refers to an article which mentions all the many many subschools. Also in the past there were many more schools than just 3 (there were for example about 18 - 20 early buddhist schools). Tripartite buddhism should refer to an article about commonalities and differences between Mahayana, Vajrayana and whatever-you-want-to-call-it-Theravada-Hinayana-Nikaya-Buddhism, not to a list of all schools. Tripartite is also a term which is generally not used in this context, although I can see why Nat (?) choose to use it. But I think Wkipedia should better stick with what is common usage. Sacca 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Template shaping up

Pretty nice if I do say so myself!  : )

Concepts

I propose putting the 'fundamentals' and 'philosophy/in depth' together under 'fundamental concepts' with a link to 'buddhist concepts', because they're all fundamental as far as I can see. Right now 'philosophy' is on top of the second list of concepts under the name 'in depth', but that name doesn't cover the subjects below it very well, and it might give the impression that using the four noble truths you can't go really deep? Also philosophy doesn't really do the job. A better discription would be 'in width' really, because they're just more concepts to use in contemplation or reflection. Anyway I think the seperation is quite artificial and it would be better to put them in one group. greetings, Sacca 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those in the fundamentals are really fundamentals.. The basic things that should be done to reach the status of nirvana, but cosmology and karma etc are, i guess, not that fundamental relatively. what do you think? i'm not an expert by the way. Janviermichelle 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology maybe not to reach Nirvana, but it is a integrated part of the general teachings of Buddha. But certainly when one doesn't believe bad causes have bad results and good causes have good results, this would be a big thing, and certainly an obstruction to setting the very first steps on the path to Nirvana. greetings, Sacca 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not know which article to link fundamentals to, but I thought the previously existing link was much better suited for 'More concepts'. Linking 'buddhism in-depth' to 'buddhist philosophy' is not really suitable I think; it's not the same. So if anybody knows a good article to link to Fundamentals please do make the link. Also if anybody wants to add buddhist philosophy as a link on its own they are free to do so off course. greetings, Sacca 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated image

Heya folks, I've gone ahead and converted User:Thedonut's (very nice) lotus image into an SVG version. Its default size is 75 pixels square, just like in the series template, but it scales up and down pretty well:

I'm considering swapping this one in for the current PNG version. I know we're supposed to be bold and all, but since this would affect so many pages with the template I figured I ought to get people's input first. — Xaonon (Talk) 08:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and changed it. I'm impatient. That's a form of boldness, right?  :/ — Xaonon (Talk) 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

nice picture :) --85.181.7.79 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Xaonon, many thanks for converting my image. I need to learn how to do that. It looks wonderful! Thedonut 02:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All, I've added more images and for example. Thedonut 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice! I like those better than mine; they look more organic and hand-drawn. I've uploaded a new version of the combined image using those two as a basis. — Xaonon (Talk) 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh... crud. The 35px and 75px images are showing up blank for me now. Is my browser cache just having fun at my expense, or did they really not update properly for some reason? — Xaonon (Talk) 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem: on one PC I've used, I see nothing but the orange background of the header; on the other, where the picture's supposed to be, I only see a white square. FWIW, when I click on the white square, it links to the picture itself. Any help fixing this would be appreciated! Thanks ahead of time :-) , Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, it looks like it's working now. Guess it must've just taken a while to clear out the old images. — Xaonon (Talk) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bhavacakra

I've stuck the template in Bhavacakra article with a bit of improvisation. It isn't on the template itself. Could someone change/remove etc as necessary. Squidnchips 11:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template colors

This template's border has been changed from red to grey and thinned by two pixels. Aesthetically, I don't object to this change it. (It does possibly create extra work since, for instance, a number of other Buddhism-related templates follow this template's color scheme.) More importantly, it makes me wonder what the basis for this template's colors is/was. For instance, the red and saffron scheme reminded me of the monastic robes of different schools. Was this the intent? If so, should it be restored? Or should we develop a more intentional color scheme for our templates? Thanks for any guidance or thoughts, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and reverted since other templates on Buddhism is using the same color scheme. Please discuss.--149.4.108.176 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist flag

Well, for what it's worth, it appears that User:216.254.121.169 edited in the current red (#AF4630) border on 13 July 2006 and the current yellow (#FFFFCC) background on 14 July 2006 (after experimenting with various background colors on 13 July 2006). I'll post a note to this user's talk page to ask if there was any Buddhism-specific basis for the chosen colors.

Regardless, perhaps the issue of intentionally developing a Buddhism-related scheme might still have merit. For instance, the color scheme could reflect the different sects' robes' colors or the various colors of the Buddhist flag, etc.

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Some examples of robe colors can be found: here, here and here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larry Rosenfeld (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for this discussion. Yes, I based the color scheme on robes (Tibetan) and generally the colors we think of when we think of Buddhism (saffron, reddish orange, yellow...etc.)...--216.254.121.169 01:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for the confirmation! Nice work! Perhaps we could put a statement between <noinclude> </noinclude> GML on the template page itself to identify this, to discourage future changes made without a Buddhist basis. For instance:

The color scheme of this page is based on the vibrant colors of monastic robes including:

• the burgundy outer and yellow under robes of Tibetan monastics
• the black robes of Zen moastics
• the saffron/ochre robes of Theravada monastics

Actually, towards this end, I'd like to try to more vigorously apply a pan-Buddhist color scheme so, with your blessing, I'll try to expand the colors used and see how long it lasts. If they last for a week, I'll see about spreading the scheme to other Buddhism templates (particularly the ones I created). (If anyone wants to join in this evolution of the scheme or simply reject it with a revert, please feel free to do so!) Thanks again for your great work User:216.254.121.169! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what I've done is an aesthetic improvement — hopefully not a significant aesthetic depreciation — but I think it does more consistently show Buddhism's diverse colors (representative of its diverse schools). (Perhaps there's a need for more Mahayana black or brown or gray?) IMHO, I think the subheader colors make the template more readable although I realize the trade-off is that the template has now expanded in length. Well, feel free to discuss here or try tweaking, etc. Any feedback appreciated. & I certainly hope the changes haven't caused any negative feelings and regret if they do. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Larry, I appreciate your efforts on this matter, and your colour scheme ideas seem pretty cool in theory. However, I happen to hold the perhaps unpopular view that this template has gotten much too large and obtrusive. If I were the only editor, I would revert back to this version. The current one is multiple times over longer than a lot of articles. Your changes make it both lengthier and the colours more eye-catching. Under the circumstances, I think FrummerThanThou's version was an improvement.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nat! As always, thanks for the excellent feedback. I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to create another simpler template, to re-instantiate this version to which you pointed. (Perhaps, "Template:BuddhismBrief"?) Personally, I think the overall content of the current template is useful and it also matches similar templates for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, etc.; nonetheless, I can easily recall articles in which the simpler version would be far more appropriate. As for the color scheme, I respect your opinion. If you chose to revert it, I'd be happy with that. (I'll hold off on propagating these colors to other Buddhism-related templates for now and won't do so if you choose to revert this template's colors.) Thanks so much again. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

the only complaint with this template -- too big --- otherwise nice color scheme and good arrangements of the topics -- gives a good overall basic and easy list of Buddhism topics from the template.--149.4.108.27 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful feedback! Regardless of what happens to the color scheme, in the next day or two or three I'll start a new thread below to attempt to address the size issue (e.g., what size should we shoot for, what criteria do we use, identifying a number of possible "tweaks" [e.g., reducing image size, reducing cellpadding, reducing border pixels, merging headers and related content, etc.] or some more significant changes [e.g., eliminating a topic or graphics or all-but-subheader content] to reduce this template's size, suggesting another smaller/simpler/alternate template [as indicated above], etc.). Thanks again. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted a note to Template_talk:Buddhism2 suggesting a modification of its colors (and border) to match this template. The tentative modification includes a suggested simplification of the existing text as well. While the simplified text has caused the template (Buddhism2) to shrink in width, the double border has somehow caused the template to grow in height. So, at this point, I'm a wee hesitant to implement this tenative change -- especially since Buddhism2 is included in close to 250 articles. Any feedback (at Template_talk:Buddhism2#Color_Scheme) is appreciated -- especially any objections (especially from Nat who originally designed the template). Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Figures: Bodhidharma? Tilopa?

To the category of "Major Figures," Nagarjuna and Dogen were recently added. (I think they were inadvertantly deleted soon afterwards, during a broader revert, so I then restored them again.) I think this addition was a positive step especially given that, although myself a Theravada practitioner, I find this template to appear to be weighted toward Indian/Nikaya/Theravada content. From prior study, I'd think it would be important to add Bodhidharma (from Chan/Zen history) as well. Whatcha all think?

In addition, after seeing the addition of Dogen, I felt compelled (from a justice standpoint) to add someone major in the Vajrayana tradition; so, I added Guru Rinpoche. Similarly, if we were to add Bodhidharma, should we also add Tilopa or Marpa or Milarepa? -- though I'm concerned that my ignorance on the topic might offend practitioners of one or more of the other Tibetan schools.

Can anyone provide any suggestions on whether to expand as identified above and, if so, which Vajrayana figure(s) might be most appropriate? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we're courting disaster if we add anyone from the post-canonical period other than Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa, and Padmasambhava. I know those are all Indians (well, Indian, Sri Lankan, and Pakistani, to be exact), but, then, once you leave India, there's a lot less that Buddhists can agree on. Dogen was an enormously influential man, but I don't know how we can justify including him but excluding Honen and/or Shinran. Even if we did settle on just Dogen, we'd in short order get complaints that we have exalted a Japanese guy but no Chinese people ... what effrontery! What about Zhiyi, or Fazang, or Huineng? The situation with modern people is even worse. Surely, the 14th Dalai Lama is the single most influential Buddhist leader today, but we certainly don't want to perpetuate the misconception that he speaks for all of Buddhism. He isn't even the leader of all Tibetan Buddhists (shortlisting the Dalai Lama creates pressure to add the Karmapa, and then, when those to are on, what, really, is the rationale for excluding the Sakya Trizin, etc.) So, I think we should stick with those three I mentioned above, or, perhaps even better, leave out the post-canonicals altogether. There's really none that all Buddhists can agree on.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nat, as always, thanks so much for your much valued wisdom and insights! In terms of a specific item: Frankly, I was tempted to add Buddhaghosa as well -- certainly one of my icons -- but I thought such might be received poorly by: (a) non-Theravada practitioners; and, (b) the increasing number of Nikaya-only Theravada practitioners. More generally, personally, I value adding representatives of non-Indian origin (though, ironically, I realize a number of my candidates have their origin in Indian subcontinent) because I think such reflects the "practice reality" of practitioners -- for instance, Zen practitioners who know of Bodhidharma and Dogen and Huineng, but really don't know much about anyone outside the Zen lineage. It's that social worker part of my background, wanting to be inclusive of different voices and then attempting to find some intuitive equilibrium for calibrating representation. But, having blabbed on about such, let me say I defer to your thoughts here. I simply don't have the knowledge, wisdom or motivation to pursue it further. So, thanks for the excellent responses. I'll cease & desist on this thread now! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Template size: "terse" parameter

As some might see above, there is concern that this template is too long. While there is a lot that can be debated about this, I decided to experiment with creating a "terse" parameter that would enable editors to (by default) use the current full template or (with a "terse" parameter) use a version of the template that just shows subheaders. Thus the coding would be something like:

• {{Buddhism}} - to show the current full template
• {{Buddhism|terse=1}} - to show subheadings only

An example of how this template might be coded is currently available at User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/sandbox2.

When this example template is invoked (as {{User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/sandbox2|terse=1}}) using the terse=1 parameter, it looks like the condensed template off to the right here:

In general, the main advantage is that I believe this template becomes more useful. The main disadvantage is that it becomes more complex to maintain (given the extra complexity of meta-language material, in particular, the #if's).

More specifically, I think some of the advantages of adding this type of functionality would include:

• WP article-editor transparency

• it's transparent to current articles with the template; no changes need to be made
• for articles (such as stubs) where the smaller/terser template is desired, simply add the aforementioned "terse=1" parameter to the template's invocation
• if articles that use the "terse=1" parameter are expanded, then the terse parameter could be easily removed (or set to zero) to allow transclusion of the fully expanded template

• content & design centralization/consistency

• any changes to subheadings or overall design in this template would be apparent in both the fully expanded and terse versions of this template (as opposed to having to alternately synchronize two different templates, a full one and a condensed one).

I believe that the main disadvantage would be:

• template-editing complexity

• this template would become more complex for two reasons:

1. the #if expressions are sprinkled throughout the template and how they work is not intuitively obvious to many (especially newer) WP editors; and,
2. #if expressions cannot be used with wiki-tables (technically speaking, this is due to the "|" [pipe] being an "overloaded operator") and thus this table has to be converted to HTML (which, in the above example template, has already been done).

All-in-all, I'm strongly inclined to add this function but, before doing so, would greatly appreciate others' feedback. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects to this change beforehand, then I'll implement this change next weekend. Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As indicated above, I'm gonna make this change presently. If this template change somehow alters any transcluding article, please revert ASAP and identify the affected article & associated impact here. If there are any objections to the change based on the internal coding (for instance, the use of HTML), please state your concern here for discussion and possible future action/reversion. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been playing with the idea of making this template "collapsible." For an example, see the newly added "Hide/Show" field in the top right corner of the tersed template just above. Anyone else have thoughts (pro or con) on this? Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC) (Honestly, I wish I could add Java script to make this template collapsible from its normal display mode to the tersed mode, but this is currently beyond my know-how.)

It's been about a dozen days and I find myself repeatedly wishing (when reading WP Buddhism articles) that this [and other] template was collapsible. So, I'm gonna implement this change momentarily.

In summary: In my mind, the primary downside of implementing this is that this will make this non-collapsed template appear slightly wider; the upside is that one can temporarily hide the bulk of the template when trying to read the article.

If anyone zealously disagrees with this change, please revert; if anyone else finds this change unpleasant, please discuss here. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Later movements/teachers

I feel those teachers like Dogen, Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa and Guru Rinpoche could maybe be linked as a group (later teachers/ commentators), instead of mentioning them individually. The same is done for Buddha's disciples and it would make the template smaller and more to the point.Greetings, Sacca 13:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Saccha! Hope you're doing well. FWIW, I like your idea of condensing the teachers/founders and I think it is worth further discussion. Something that might kind of fit the bill for what you identified could be this list.

If I may add my two cents: Without splitting hairs just yet, I intuit that it might be worthwhile to group non-Nikaya forerunners in groups according to their traditions/schools (to borrow handy terminology Nat & Peter have been teaching me :-) ). For instance, if there were an article on Zen patriarchs or the Zen lineage, I'd think that such an article might be worthwhile including. Secondarily (okay, I'm about to split a big fat hair), I think one could argue that someone like Bodhidharma was historically more important to global Buddhism than most of the Buddha's disciples (with some obvious exceptions being, for instance, strictly from a historical standpoint, Mahakassappa, Upali, Ananda, etc.); so, if we need to condense, I could see some advocating for Bodhidharma or Nagarjuna over the Buddha's Disciples. Perhaps it might be worthwhile first explicitly articulating the criteria for inclusion in this and other sections of this template?

My two cents. I hope you are happy & well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC) [ignorant until proven otherwise]

Puke-green Buddha in puke-green lotus

Why was the formerly transparent Buddha-in-lotus symbol changed to lemon-lime green? In the next two days or so, if a good rationale is not provided for this unilateral change or if the image is not reverted to its former transparent self, then I'm going to effectively revert this undiscussed, uncited and seemingly mischevious change by replacing the transcluded image in this template from Image:Lotus-buddha.svg to Image:Lotus75.png .

It should be noted that the person (User:COACOAMAN) who changed this image from transparent to green has only two other edits to their name which consist of inserting the following text into the article on Camelot and then reverting themselves:

"Camelot" was the living manor for King Arthur. Camelot got its name for its excessive surplus of camels.

Thanks for any feedback, rationale and/or help, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Change made. If anyone can change the jpg image to an svg image, my understanding is that this might reduce image load time (?). Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

needs more Japan

The sidebar is a great overview of the Indian-style continental schools of Buddhism, but it needs some links to other national traditions. How about something along the lines of:

Japan:

• Nichiren
• Pure Land Buddhism
• Shingon
• Zen
• etc.?

I know there's a risk of too much cluttering, but c'mon, no link to Zen?? That seems a bit odd to me.

Similar sections could be made for China to Ch'an and whatnot and for Tibet to the Four Schools.

--66.8.203.13 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

China and Japan fall under East Asia, just like Vietnam and Myanmar fall under South-east Asia. Also, Zen falls under Mahayana, just like the Thai Forest Tradition falls under Theravada, and the Gelugpa falls under Vajrayana. It would be too much to put all the sects in all those countries in this list. So better just leave it as it is.Greetings, Sacca 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Whilst the number of Nichiren schools is immense, I believe the fact that wiki mentions a mere two main-stays of Buddhism is lacking and POV. I've added the Nicheren school, because it's practiced heavily in the west and has a celebrity following, so it's relevant. But mainly I've added it because leaving it out smacks of racism. And anyway, these aren't schools, Nichiren + Theravada have many schools, these are "Branches".--88.105.73.180 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the objective basis for asserting that Nichiren is not part of Mahayana Buddhism? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You COMPLETELY misunderstand how wiki works. It's your job TO PROVE that Nichiren IS part of Mahayana Buddhism, as it is not, and as you can't, I'm putting it back in.--88.105.80.10 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You might find it useful to review the discussion at Talk:Buddhism#.22Eastern_Buddhism.22:_Not_Best_Subheading.3F in regards to the WP Buddhism community's views regarding terms such as "Mahayana" and "East Asian" Buddhism. Without rehashing that discussion here (though perhaps we can restart the matter there sometime?), suffice it to say that, in WP articles, "Mahayana" and "East Asian" Buddhism have a certain denotative equivalence. Given this, then, in terms of the views of scholars in widely available publications, you can check out Richard H. Robinson & Willard L. Johnson's "The Buddhist Religion" (1982), pp. 205-206, and Rupert Gethin's "The Foundations of Buddhism" (1998), pp. 259-260, which include Nichiren under "East Asian Buddhism" and "The schools of East Asian Buddhism" respectively.

Perhaps one could argue that, under the "Schools" category, instead of "Theravada," "Mahayana" and "Vajrayana" we should have "Southeast Asian," "East Asian" and "Tibetan"; personally, after much effort on the part of User:Peter_jackson, I'm open to this discussion. But, it should be a civil discussion on this talk page first as the intelligent analysis and earnest efforts of many WP editors have gone into creating this template in its current form.

Another matter is one of equity and what computer folk refer to as "level of abstraction." In a sense, notions such as Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana are comparable to that of continents while terms such as Zen, Tien-t'ai, Pure Land and Nichiren are comparable to countries. It wouldn't make sense to make a list of Asia, Africa, Europe and Canada. Likewise, Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Nichiren is equally mismatched. If you were to insert Nichiren under schools, then you should also list all the other Japanese Buddhist schools, as well as those of China, Tibet, etc. Then, this template would be significantly expanded which, as has been discussed elsewhere on this page, would create pragmatic and aesthetic problems for the dozens of articles that incorporate this page. You might argue that it is worth expanding the template in this matter but, again, this should first be a discussion here.

Honestly, it is wonderful to see your enthusiasm for Nichiren Buddhism -- and I am hoping that your enthusiasm is sincere and not a ruse to start mischief. You also seem significantly versed in WP ways, for instance, using Edit Summaries effectively. Given your knowledge and skill, I hope you feel motivated to add your knowledge to Nichiren and related pages.

Perhaps this discussion needs a few more iterations to be sufficiently resolved? Just in case, to avert the ill will associated with multiple reverts, I'll hold off on undoing your most recent reversion for now.

I wish you well and hope sometime we can work together harmoniously, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This template is transcluded in over 600 articles and thus its accuracy affects many WP users. For the sake of these WP users, having waited two days for a response, I assess that it is time to align this template's information based on the cited reliable sources.

More specifically, WP verification policy states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." While it is believed that the editor who recently added Nichiren to the template is sincere and is being true to their beliefs, they have not provided any sources (reliable or otherwise) to support their belief that Nichiren Buddhism is not subsumed under Mahayana Buddhism. Moreover, in regards to restoring this template to its former state, previously deemed reliable sources (Robinson & Johnson, 1982; Gethin, 1998) have been cited as a basis for identifying that Nichiren is part of "East Asian Buddhism" which, on WP, has been taken to be comparable to "Mahayana Buddhism." Therefore, in accordance with WP policy, for the benefit of all WP users, I will undo the addition of Nichiren to this template later today.

This decision is not made lightly as it is anticipated to cause the initial editor (and possibly a few others) some grief. If anyone can provide reliable sources that would contravene this decision or identify a solution that would more harmoniously resolve this matter, please do so. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would just take Nichiren out. in the article nichiren it says Nichiren devotes itself on the lotus sutra, a mahayana text. And mahayana is already included in the template. The template is also not about promoting Japan, it's about Buddhism. For promoting Japan it would be better to go to a template about Japan, not about Buddhism. Can you imagine what the template would look like if we include all the subgroups, branches and schools of all (Buddhist) countries? Greetings, Sacca 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo everyone. I have found the above discussion really intriguing and fascinating. I must say that I was surprised to see it stated that Nichiren Buddhism does not fall within the vast embrace of Mahayana Buddhism (although I do agree with the statement that Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana are branches, rather than schools, of Buddhism). I have always understood that Nichiren is generally classified as a part of Mahayana Buddhism. If not Mahayana, what, then, is it? I'd be really curious to know. As Sacca comments, the Lotus Sutra is the central focus of worship and veneration in Nichiren Buddhism, and that sutra is - one might almost say - THE Mahayana sutra of Mahayana sutras! I share Larry and Sacca's respect and admiration for those persons who sincerely love the manifestation of Dharma which they are following (whether it be Nichiren Buddhism, or Theravada Buddhism, or my own Tathagatagarbha Buddhism, etc.), but I do have to agree with both Larry and Sacca (and this is not to show any disrespect towards other editors or their form of Buddhism) that "Nichiren" should be removed from the disputed list - as it does not quite fit into the pattern established there. I would see Nichiren Buddhism as a highly influential "country" subsumed within the greater continent (Larry's marvellous analogy) of Mahayana Buddhism. But I'd be really interested to read the viewpoints of other Buddhists and scholars on this matter. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ... mostly everybody. Nichiren should be treated as part of Mahayana, and I don't understand how doing so is racist. In accordance with the discussion Larry referenced above, I don't think we should start adding more "major figures" ... there're too many of them.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nat, as always, thanks so much for your helpful guidance and shared wisdom.

Given WP policy that additions should be reliably sourced and none has been provided for the inclusion of Nichiren in this template, given that reversions should be sourced and above such has been provided, given apparent communal consensus that the addition was not in the best interest of WP, I'm going to undo the addition momentarily.

I hope the editor(s) who added Nichiren (and, previously, Zen) to this template find their earnest desires at least partly addressed through the new template offered below and/or through the variety of other WP opportunities for them to share their enthusiasm, vision and talent. I look forward to future fruitful collaborations.

Best wishes to all, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Japanese_Buddhism prototype

Sacca and Tony, thanks so much for your greatly valued, knowledgeable feedback. Tangentially, as perhaps Sacca implies, if anyone would like assistance in creating a Template:JapaneseBuddhism or Template:EastAsianBuddhism -- or something to the like, perhaps listing schools, major texts, major figures, practices, geographical destinations, etc. -- please let me know and I'd be happy to help. Also, echoing Tony's point about "branches," I've started a thread below on whether or not we should rename this template's "Schools" category to "branches" or "divisions" or "lineages," etc. Thanks so much again. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've added a bootstrap table to the right that might serve in the future for a Template:JapaneseBuddhism. People should feel to change this prototype – in terms of content, image, organization, color scheme, etc. – in anyway you think best (just identify your change for discussion below). Let me know if you'd like me to cut & paste this to the appropriate Template page, if you so desire. Hope some might find this of interest. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• For starters, I moved Bodhidharma down to the line with Dogen and Rinzai, partly to align the Zen patriarchs and partly to condense the table. Should Bodhidharma even be in this table? (Perhaps save him for an "East Asian" or "Chinese Buddhism" template?)
• Tried to replace Chinese founders (e.g., Zhiyi, Bodhidharma, etc.) with their Japanese counterparts (e.g., Saichō, Eisai, etc.).

Nice template, it is new I suppose? But why use black and red as main colors? Are those important colors in Japanese Buddhism? It looks very strong and hard. Greetings, Sacca 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just born yesterday right here :-)

Honestly, in terms of colors associated with Japanese Buddhist practices, all I ignorantly recollect are the black Zen monastic robes. As a result, I initially tried to make the header (with the words "Japanese Buddhism" and the Buddha image) all black but then, because "Japanese Buddhism" is wiki-linked (and thus by default is colored dark blue or purple), the word "Japanese Buddhism" became highly unreadable. So, for the sake of visibility, I had to change header colors; I forget where I got the red from -- perhaps from the red sun on the Japanese flag or is it from the color of Bodhidharma's robe in the famous drawing of him? -- but I realize I might have over done it.

Given the national basis for the template (that is, Japan), I'll try to better incororate the Japanese colors of white and red intermixed with the Zen monastic robe's blackness. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and/or play around with other colors, of course. This is just a "prototype" -- possibly never to be used.

FWIW, I also realize that I left out a number of important texts such as the Lankavatara Sutra and Diamond Sutra -- franky, I just picked out the ones identified as "primary texts" in the Japanese Buddhism article. Also, other categories -- such as "Practices" with items such as zazen, koan and Nembutsu -- could be added.

Thanks for your all's responses, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a useful template to look at and understand Japanese Buddhism, but maybe it's not practical to put this template in many articles other than those obviously about Japanese Buddhism: in the article on the Lotus Sutra, how many 'national Buddhism templates' will there be? Chines Buddhism, Korean Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism, Taiwanese Buddhism. It's a bit much. A template on Mahayana Buddhism would be better, and also possibly more relevant (than the Buddhism template) in an article on the Lotus Sutra. Greetings, Sacca 03:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent points. I agree completely: If this prototype is ever picked up (and, if no one else does, I might just cut and paste it into a template this weekend), it should be relegated to Japanese-specific pages. (Lately, I've been more and more concerned about sidebar clutter on WP Buddhism pages -- much of which I have caused myself. Not sure what a good solution would be at this time.) Perhaps, for the pan-Mahayana and pan-Buddhist pages, an alternate solution might be to create a "footer"-style version of this prototype template (like Template:Buddhism2)? Or, as you suggest, perhaps the next time I'm laid up in bed for a couple of days I'll tinker with a Template:EastAsianBuddhism/Mahayana.

What of our hearts' desire: might it be time for a Template:EarlyBuddhism or Template:TheravdaBuddhism (or does Template:Peoplepalicanon suffice?) ?

As always, I am deeply indebted for your shared perspective, knowledge and wisdom, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll make this a free-standing template momentarily. Thanks again to those who contributed to this whether through instigation, inspiration or needed critique. May this template give voice to those who have felt slighted and help educate those who seek such knowledge. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Schools" vs. "Branches" vs. "Sects" vs. "Lineages"?

In his recent comments under Template_talk:Buddhism#needs_more_Japan, 88.105.73.180 has a secondary point that I think is worthy of consideration. Essentially, I hear him questioning the use of the word "school" in this template. Given that I don't think 88.105.73.180 is the first to express concern with or be confused by this term (for instance, I think not too long ago someone inserted Zen into the template because Zen is a "school"), I'm wondering if we should use a different term. 88.105.73.180 suggested "branches." Template:Buddhism2 currently uses "sects." The article Schools of Buddhism uses terms such as "categories" (too broad?) and "lineage." The article Buddhism includes the section title, "divisions." Anyone have any ideas on which term would (a) ring most true, and (b) cause least confusion/churn among future readers/editors? Thanks for any feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Theravada", I suppose, qualifies as a school (with various subbranches and regional varieties), and it is part of the same branch as all of the known "early schools". Nevertheless, I think the clearest way to present this information on the template would be lump everything together as "branches".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nat, thanks so much once again! You, TonyMPNS and, to some degree, 88.105.73.180 all seem to agree on this. If no one disagrees, in order to reduce future misunderstandings, I'd like to go ahead and change this template's category header of "Schools" to "Branches" sometime in the next couple of days. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Larry, Nat, 88105, and Sacca: thanks for the excellent work you are doing (I for one appreciate the time you are putting into this). The new Japanese template looks really good - impressive. I personally like the red and the black very much indeed - but I can imagine (as Sacca says) that it would not be to everyone's taste. What do other people think? Yes, I do support the use of the term "Branches" instead of "Schools" (on the general Buddhism chart) - and I'm glad that there seems to be a fairly high level of consensus on this one. Historically speaking, Nat is assuredly right about Theravada's being a "school" - but as you say, Nat, nowadays it is probably more realistic, straightforward and practical to class it as a "branch" of Buddhism. [Text from this entry has been cut and moved to start the next section below with the author's permission.]... Tony. TonyMPNS 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your all's thoughtful feedback and valuable time. I'll make the agreed-upon change to the template momentarily. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Include Buddha Nature?

One more point: I think that "Buddha Nature" should be added to the list of "Key Concepts" given in the template (but then I would, wouldn't I?!). Larry, could you add that, do you think - if everyone else is agreeable to the idea?? Thank you once more for all your efforts, everyone. Warm greetings from London. Tony. TonyMPNS 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I don't support the inclusion of Buddha Nature. It's too specifically Mahayana and unsupported by Theravada. Note that I don't mind about the inclusion of Shunyata, which in its popular incarnation is mostly Mahayana, but doesn't really conflict with Theravada in any way that I can see, and seems to be just another way of saying anatta, empty of self. It says in the article Buddha Nature that: 'Buddha-nature is often referred to as "Tathagatagarbha', didn't you call yourself a Tathagatagardbha follower? Is that the name of a sect/school also? Anyway, it's certainly a key concept in Mahayana and should be included in a Mahayana template if there was one (I'm not saying we need a Mahayana and Theravada template, by the way). But as it is not a key concept in all branches of Buddhism, I think it should be kept out of the Buddhism template. Greetings, Sacca 17:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. Yes, I was wondering whether "Buddha Nature" might be too specifically Mahayana for general Buddhism concepts. Let's see what other people think. Certainly it should be included in a Mahayana template - if such a one emerges - as you say. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, personally, I'd be happy to add Buddha nature though I'd hope that we could reach a stronger resolution regarding this first.

In my mind, the question boils down to: Do we want this template to represent only universally accepted ideas (common to all "branches") or should it represent the central tenets of the vast majority of Buddhists?

If the latter, then given that it appears the 75 to 95 percent (???) of Buddhist are from Mahayana countries (based on Buddhism_by_country), then I (a Theravada practitioner) think that Buddha nature should be included. If the former, then no. (An additional thing that makes me okay with adding Buddha nature to this template is that the article Buddha nature clearly identifies that it is a Mahayana-only concept.)

Do others see this differently? Are my inferences incorrect? Do we have precedence here or on the templates of other major religions? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Larry. Thanks very much indeed for your amazingly generous-hearted and open-minded response. I am staggered by your all-inclusiveness and universalist perspective. I applaud that hugely. I think you make some excellent points above. I (a Mahayanist) take my figurative cap off to you as a Theravadin who seems genuinely to practise "metta" and goodwill! Having said all that, I do think that it is only fair if the majority viewpoint on this matter wins the day: if most people reject the idea of including Buddha Nature in the template, I shall certainly understand their reasoning and will accept the majority decision. Anyway, thank you again, Larry, for a refreshingly open-minded, flexible (non-"dosa" and non-clinging!) response to my idea. I am truly impressed (I hope you don't mind my saying this!). All best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 22:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, but then the Template wouldn't be about Buddhism any more, but about Mahayana Buddhism, since items which would be of a Theravada-nature could not be included since there's not enough Theravadins. By the way, I had a look at the Buddhism-by-country article and it says that 96% of Japanese are Buddhist, and 77% of Chinese. These are ridiculous figures, much too high, and that's probably why The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed.. Buddhism in Korea is also reported much too high, by the way. But Korea is a smaller country so it doesn't add up so much. Suddenly there's 1.5 Billion Buddhists in the world, mainly by quadrupling the Chinese number of Buddhists...  ;-) From Buddhism article: World estimates for Buddhists vary between 230 and 500 million, with most around 350 million. Greetings, Sacca 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, it turns out I was wrong, it's not a quadrupling but a 10-dupling of the original 8% of Buddhists in China.... see [1]Greetings, Sacca 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! My bad. Just in case the matter of "majority rules" proves to be a factor (deciding or otherwise), is there any way to better ascertain the number/proportion of Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana (or South/East/North, etc.) Buddhists there are. (I thought I saw it somewhere else but can't recall where.) Sacca, thanks for catching my factual error! Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, if somebody would repair the percentages for Japan, China and Korea and Taiwan, it should be quite ok. The numbers for the other countries seem to be quite ok, approximately speaking that is. There's more ambiguity concerning the Mahayana figures/percentages, mainly because the Mahayana countries are generally less Buddhist than Theravada countires and the Vajrayana countries/areas, things are mixed up quite a bit with the old 'Mahayanist' countries, people believe some Buddhist, some confucius, some Dao, some Shinto, some Christian ectcetera. In Japan people are born shinto, marry christian, and die buddhist (and sometimes they get divorced also, but then religion is not involved  ;-) ) But the Vajrayana and Theravada numbers/ percentages are much clearer (not ambiguous) and higher. Generally above 90% (Sri Lanka is an exeption with 70% due to the invasions from India in ancient history, when the Hindu invaders sacked the country). all the best Greetings, Sacca 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:MahayanaBuddhism prototype

M a h a y a n a B u d d h i s m Countries Bhutan • China • Korea Japan • Tibet • Vietnam Taiwan • Mongolia Doctrine Bodhisattva • Bodhicitta Karuna • Prajna Sunyata • Buddha Nature Trikaya • Eternal Buddha Scriptures Prajnaparamita Sutra Avatamsaka Sutra Lotus Sutra Nirvana Sutra Vimalakīrti Sutra Lankavatara Sutra History 4th Buddhist Council Silk Road • Nagarjuna Asanga • Vasubandhu Bodhidharma

Perhaps picking up on a comment made by Sacca above (at 03:04, 3 May 2007 UTC, under the Template:Japanese_Buddhism prototype section), Tony proposed that a more harmonious solution to the question of inserting Buddha Nature into this template (Template:Buddhism) is to perhaps put the concept in a new Mahayana-specific template. So, we came up with the prototype on the right. (An earlier version, based more ostensibly on the colors of the lotus, can be found at User_talk:TonyMPNS#Template:MahayanaBuddhism).

FWIW, the text of this new proposed template is largely based on a gloss of the article Mahayana although Tony wisely added a number of items. (I take the blame for the "History" section which admittedly is a hodgepodge and a credit to my vast ignorance. Also, if we could figure out a place to stick in Avalokiteshvara, my one-time Zen bones would clatter happily.) Tony suggested the color scheme based on the prominence of gold and yellow in Mahayana Buddhism (e.g., The Golden Light Sutra).

Any feedback? If you feel strongly about wanting to make a contribution to this prototype (that is, add, delete, modify), please do. Your all's feedback is highly valued. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this, Larry. It is impressive. Others will know more about the History section than I do and they can perhaps modify things, if they think that is necessary. Overall, I think this template is excellent. Congratulations on a job well done! Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony - your graciousness is unsurpassed, your expertise unblemished. Thanks again for all your kindness & excellence, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the letters of the top title don't read nicely, too far apart and too close to the picture. Other wise it looks nice. Greetings, Sacca 09:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sacca, Thanks so much for adding countries & for your eagle-eyed critique.

I'm inclined to agree with you about the inter-line space between the image and the header words, so I've now tried to address it by putting the header image and text in an embedded table, separated by rows. Not sure it's a great solution though. (For one thing, it's now expanded the template longer than my console height, which I'm not crazy about.)

Regarding the current inter-character spacing between header letters, at this time, I kind of sorta maybe prefer it. The basis for the spacing is as follows: after some tinkering, I decided the header looked best if the image was as wide as the longest line of text in the rest of the table (with some minimal blank-space framing around the image); it then appeared that a similar aesthetic was reinforced when the header text letters ("Mahayana Buddhism") was the same width as the image; since I don't know of how to specify character spacing using HTML or wiki-markup (vs. in Microsoft products), I found that the insertion of blank characters best achieved the effect I desired. (An alternative approach involves bolding the header text but then it looked too similar to the category-title text [e.g., "Countries"] for me.) I can understand your finding the spacing awkward looking; for me, it's currently the best alternative. I sense more tinkering is coming though :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've just noticed your latest additions to the template, Larry: they are splendid. I should have thought of mentioning Asanga and Vasubandhu myself (shame on me - call myself a Mahayanist?!!). Anyway, thank you for adding this info. I hope more people will comment on your great work. So far only Sacca has had sufficient interest to join in on our discussion. Hopefully, a few more people will want to add their voices too. Thank you for all your thoughtfulness and creative efforts. Warm regards. Tony. TonyMPNS 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Created page template:MahayanaBuddhism and transcluded the template in Mahayana, Mahayana sutras, Nirvana Sutra and Buddha-nature. Feel free to revert or modify any and all. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

shinbutsu shūgō

why isn't the japanese blend of Buddhism and Shinto part of the template?Seth J. Frantzman 12:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a division of Buddhism on par with Theravāda, Mahāyāna, [Vajrayāna], and the early schools?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that was my question. There is no doubt that this is a central part of the national religion of Japan and if you look at the site for it on Wikipedia, it describes it as a blend with Buddhism, I think the Buddhism template should have a section for things such as this, or perhaps a section for countries where Buddhism is the majority. I am not a scholar of Buddhism, but it seems there should be a quick and easy way to get from the Buddhism main page to Shinbutsu Shugo.Seth J. Frantzman 13:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Balance

I see this is just as unbalanced as the main article: most of the entries for Buddhist teachings are Westernized Theravada. Peter jackson 16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

template collapsibility

I just restored the "class" parameter with its prior setting of "infobox collapsible." My recollection is that the default of this parameter (e.g., when the "collapsed" value is not explicitly specified) is for the template to be not collapsed (that is, to be expanded) unless a prior collapsible template in an article is expanded; it thus provides an intuitive mechanism for keeping the article-specific highest-priority (that is, first mentioned) template expanded while the following ones are collapsed. Practically speaking, in the vast majority of WP Buddhism articles, this template would thus be expanded.

The "infobox collapsible" setting was the setting of this parameter for a long time prior to the recent unilateral, undiscussed (or, in WP lingo, "bold") addition of the "collapsed" value to this parameter which forced the template to be collapsed initially in all instances. Today, the entire "class" parameter was deleted which, among other things, eliminated the beneficial null-border around the template (which prevents article text from bumping up against the template -- though, admittedly, this could be achieved using other parameters).

Frankly, to my surprise, I kind of liked seeing the template collapsed. It reminded of Nat Krause's long-time concern that this template has gotten too big. I kind of see his point now. So, I'm thinking of making the initial collapsed state of this article configurable. That is, this template would then be in an initially collapsed or expanded state on an article-by-article basis. My current inclination is to make the default (that is, if no configurable parameter is specified) to be that the template would be expanded, but I can be persuaded otherwise. (Tangentially, if this template's initial configuration would be that it was collapsed initially, then I'd be inclined to make such only applicable to non-"terse" templates; to me, collapsing the tersed template is kind of redundant, and expanding a collapsed tersed template is a wee disappointing.)

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? (Have I made my views completely unintelligible?) Any civil, constructive feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who "unilaterally" set up the template "collapsed" because in Korean Buddhism related articles, there has more than 2 templates conflicting each other and this Buddhism template is too long. I should've talked with people first, but after making the change, none seemed to object to my revision until now. I, of course prefer it holds at least collapsible. --Appletrees (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Appletrees -

Thanks for the explanation -- it certainly makes sense. I'll try to find time in the next few days to make "collapsed" a configurable parameter for this template (unless you or someone else beats me to it :-) ) FWIW, I kind of feel that the expanded template actually provides the only thing of visual interest in dozens of articles, so I think the default initial state should be expanded; but, again, I'm open to discussion before (or even after, of course!) implementing this.

Best regards,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's not the prettiest code or best documented but essentially if you transclude this template as:

{{Buddhism|collapsed=1}}

it should initially appear in the collapsed state. (Technically, if you set the "collapsed=" parameter to anything it will activate this feature. As I said, it ain't pretty :-) ). I'll change the transclusion in the Korean Buddhism article just to illustrate (test?) this. Hope this is satisfactory. Again, if further processing desired, let's discuss.

Best wishes,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!! Your setting magically coveys differently to each article. I'm satisfied with the current result and I hope others think the same as mine. :) --Appletrees (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you find the change satisfying and thank you for your continued kindness. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Navayāna (Dalit Buddhist movement) added to "Branches" section?

In regards to today's addition of Navayāna to the "Branches" section of this template, can someone help me understand in what way Navayana is or is not comparable to Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Or is this a new variation on the above #needs more Japan discussion? I ask without reverting because I really know very little about Navayana and the editor (User:Koavf, aka, Justin Anthony Knapp) who inserted this information appears both very sincere and thoughtful. (I'll post to Justin's talk page momentarily.) Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Navayana Larry, I added that group, as it appears they fall outside of those other three traditions (and, of course, the two early Buddhist branches.) Since the neo-Buddhist movement was founded by Ambedkar and is uniquely Indian, it is its own movement within the larger culture of Buddhism. I chose the "Navayāna" name even though it is a neologism for conformity with the names used for the other branches. I suppose it is not comparable to those other traditions due to its size and relatively sort history. Thanks for directing me to this discussion; I'd be happy to read others' thoughts. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bhumi

[[Bhumi (Buddhism)|Bhumi]]s was recently added to this template. I reverted this edit because I mistakenly perceived that this new text overwrote links to Meditation and Laity. I now see that my perception was incorrect: the Bhumi article did not replace the latter two articles but instead was inserted before them and they were placed on a new line.

However, I'm disinclined to self-revert (something I've done in the past) because I still concerned about:

1. Universality: Bhumi appears to me to be too sectarian (perhaps Vajrayana Buddhism specific?) for the "Practices and Attainments" section
2. Hierarchical significance: Bhumi appears to me to be a relatively secondary topic for this template (e.g., one that perhaps could be intellectually subsumed under the notion of "meditation," e.g., as presumably Dhyana is).
3. Related expansions of template: Related to the second concern, if we allow Bhumi to be added, what would prevent the adding of topics such as Dhyana, Samadhi, Samatha, Threefold Training, etc., which would cause the expansion of this template contrary to previously expressed views?

Nonetheless, I'd be interested in others' views on this. Thanks for any additional feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regions vs. Countries

This seems to be a recurring problem. Regions or Countries? On 24 March 2008, in the "Regions" section of this template, "East Asia" was replaced with "China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam". On 26 March 2008, "Mongolia" was added. Prior to all this, the following countries were already enumerated in this section: "India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Tibet, Bhutan".

Do we want regions or countries? Since the tide has seemed to turn for the moment in the favor of the latter, I changed "Southeast Asia" to Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Singapore, etc., and renamed the section "Countries." And then to minimize overt POV, I alphabetized. (FWIW, I decided to finally intervene today because I noticed that the addition of Mongolia expanded the template's width so that the header was uncentered....)

I am completely open to completely reverting to regions (go ahead, do it now if you like, as far as I'm concerned), but I think a hybrid regions/countries section is problemmatic. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Tibet, China"

A new anon user recently changed "Tibet" to "Tibet, China" and changed "Countries" to "Countries/Regions." I changed "Tibet, China" back to "Tibet" for three reasons:

1. By changing "Countries" to "Countries/Regions," "Tibet" is now covered without reference to China
2. Probably due to my ignorance (so correct me if I error) but "Tibet, China" sounds to me somewhat neologistic, vs., e.g., "Tibet Autonomous Region of China"
3. "Tibet, China" expanded the width of this template which (as indicated a number of times on this talk page) we've been trying hard to maintain or reduce

So, as it stands, the section title is now "Countries/Regions" and "Tibet" is "Tibet." Any objections? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Navayāna

On 26 March 2008, on-going WP Buddhism contributor User:Koavf added Navayāna to this template. The last time he did this was on 24 Jan. 2008; which long-time WP Buddhism contributor User:Sacca reverted on 28 Jan. 2008 with the Edit Summary of:

somebody keps putting back the dalits who are theravadins

Is there consensus on this matter? Thanks. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Boy, my memory is feeble. This matter was initially broached above, with Justin's thoughtful response. If anyone is inclined to delete his addition again, can they please also add a persuasive reason for doing so on this talk page. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the rationale for including Navayāna as one of the major streams of Buddhism. Navayāna has been associated as a movement based on Theravadin Buddhism [2].

The Wikipedia article on the Dalit Buddhist movement contains this, entirely apt, quote from Gail Omvedt:

The question that is then clearly put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism?

It is an open question. Surely not one that we should attempt to decide through our template on Buddhism. I would like to return to the traditional three streams of Buddhism until we can find an authoritative source that suggests that this is a fourth stream. Otherwise, we are going to be in for all kinds of original research claiming that various "Buddhisms" are unique (and potentially the fifth, sixth... nth "yanas"). Sunray (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we don't add Navayāna because it's not well known. Maybe a link of "new buddhist movements" or "buddhism in the west" can be added. If we add Navayāna we should add also Pacchimayāna (western buddhism) and any other yāna that we can think of... not that they won't have there "time"... but that time is not now.--Esteban.barahona (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "Navayana" has been used by a few different people, not just in reference to the Dalit Buddhist movement. See for example, [3], or [4]. I think, the term is used by anyone who feels that certain recently evolved forms of Buddhism cannot be fit into the traditional Theravada - Mahayana - Vajrayana typology. The problem I see, is that these three traditional ideas represent coherent viewpoints, or collections of ideas around some unifying themes. Whereas, its not clear (not yet at least) what exactly different forms of "navayana" have in common with each other, other than mere newness, or eclecticism, or the absorption of modern Western ideas or culture. I still think its useful to be aware of this term, and the questions it poses (indeed, we have an article called navayana). But, at this stage in the history of Buddhism, I don't think we can put it on the same level as the three traditional yanas. Come back in a few more decades, or centuries, and maybe we will be adding it to the template then :). --SJK (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Those are the images that has being used in this template AFAIK. I'm biased to use the yellow dharma wheel because I collaborated in its making, but I like the 3 images. IMO, we should prefer Dharma Wheels (which ever) because it's the official Buddhist symbol. Also, I suggest we use them scaled, the yellow one for bigger display, the white one for medium and the lotus for small... because there "nominal size" follows that same order (of size).--Esteban.barahona (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Esteban — thanks for creating the new Dharma wheel – as you know, I think it looks great and is a welcome additon to this template. Also, thanks for taking this issue to this talk page. (I added a similar, less considerate, item below before seeing what you wrote here — I'll delete my entry after saving this.)

My take on these three images is as follows:

• the golden dharma wheel (that you created) is highly visible, nicely detailed and has a color scheme consistent with the rest of the template
• the white dharma wheel is hard to see — if I did not know what it replaced, I'm not sure I would have known what it was supposed to be at a smaller scale — and, to the best of my limited knowledge, I don't think an all-white dharma wheel has any particular meaning within Buddhism (if it does, please let me know & thanks for the education)
• the Buddha sitting in a lotus is nice and creative, but it is fairly "original" (non-traditional) and, frankly, it's had a nice long run

So, I vote for propagating the new golden wheel (created by yourself).

Lastly, when the all-white wheel was inserted, the editor deleted significant code related to terse-mode, essentially increasing the size of the tersed template inexplicably, working against the whole point of a tersed template. So, I've reinserted that code.

Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was a collaboration (I made a derivative with colors and changed the shape) ^_^ I also think that the lotus-buddha is original, but is not an "officially representative of Buddhism".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my "original" Buddha In Lotus had a nice run. Thank you for replacing the previously existing Dharmachakra with a cooler, more modern (and SVG) version. All my blessings! Thedonut (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thedonut - thanks again to you for sharing your inspired creativity with us all. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you, it is an original lothus+buddha image :)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Color Scheme

A few changes can be made to use less borders and standarize in colors by using only hexadecimal colors (no "solid yellow") and putting them on the Color scheme section. I added the hexadecimal code for the colors. Is it possible to change the hyperlinks colors to one of this (black and burgundy?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

One way to change a wikilink's color is to use the <span> tag plus a wikipipe within the wikilink tag. Thus, for example, this:

[[Buddhism|<span style="color: red">Buddhism</span>]]

looks like:

Buddhism

whereas, without the <span> tag and wikipipe, it would simply look like:

Buddhism

One thing to keep in mind though is that, by changing a wikilink's normal color, readers might not realize that they can clink on it and be linked to a relevant article.

FWIW, if I may, while I'm happy to help (as time allows), I do not endorse the most recent changes you've made to the template's borders, etc., mainly because by increasing the font size you've widened the template width — and for a number of articles the template is already too wide. Also, frankly, I'm attached to the old color scheme and borders — I believe they were richer overall; but, since I put them in place, I'll assume I'm too close to the matter to speak objectively. Perhaps, as with U.S. politics, it is time for a change ;-)

Be well. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, having lived with the new scheme for a while, I can say now that I like it. It seems to me, based on the overall changes you've made, it appears as if a major impetus was to increase the font size but, once doing so, it become desireable to restore the previous overall template width and length by eliminating a border, eliminating the lower picture, etc. Whether or not this was the progression of your edits, I can understand and support the trade off.

My one lingering concern is that by eliminating the inner yellow border, an aspect of traditional Tibetan monastic robe colors was eliminated. This makes the saffron/orange (Theravada monastic's robe color) even more prominent. While I am myself a Theravadin practitioner, I'd like this template's color scheme to be as inclusive and widely representative as possible. So, I'd welcome ideas on how to achieve such from a color-scheme viewpoint. Relatedly, something that has been a problem well before the recent changes, the representation of non-Tibetan Mahayana colors (e.g., black, brown?) is marginal at best.

Kudos & caveats. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Esteban (and any others following this thread) -

I like your recent change of the "Buddhism" and "Portal..." links to what we're calling burgundy. Seeing this, I've taken a liking to your suggestion above that we color other wikilinked words a different color (e.g., burgundy for subject headers [e.g., "History"] and black for subject items [e.g., "Timeline," "Buddhist councils"]). Anyone object?

Thanks for any feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I see the very pretty Template:Islam already does this :-) - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the link-color tip! The changes where mostly for design, specifically: simplify. Now that we agree on a color scheme, we can use only this colors. About links: almost all the text inside the template is a link. Throughout the Net, personalizing web-link colors have being favoured instead of an (arguable) "increased accesibility". FWIW, I relate Budhism to yellow and orange (and it's already used extensively in {{MahayanaBuddhism}}--Esteban Barahona (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, just to be clear, the colors I used to create the {{MahayanaBuddhsim}} template back in May 2007 were based on a request by User:TonyMPNS, as can be seen at User_talk:TonyMPNS#Template:MahayanaBuddhism and User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld/Archive_2#Mahayana_Template, in part to symbolize the "Sutra of the Golden Light." Thus, the yellow and gold of {{MahayanaBuddhism}} are not meant to be universal Buddhist colors but emblematic of Mahayana ideals.

The colors for this template, {{Buddhism}}, were actually first put into place by User:216.254.121.169. (To set the record straight, I misspoke above when I wrote that I had "put in place" these colors, though I've done some significant work on this template.) As indicated in a December 2006 discussion at Template_talk:Buddhism/Archive_001#Template_colors, the motivation for these colors was to represent the colors of monastic garbs. Personally, I think it is valuable to maintain this color scheme — rationally, externally, empirically based — to avoid changes to this template due to an editor's idiosyncractic aesthetic (because such can lead to a lot of changes and reversions and argumentation). But my time on WP is winding up, at least for the short term, so I'm less inclined to revert now and more inclined to toss out ponderous, pendantic, ineffective blather on talk pages. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

color of links

Burgundy (and likewise black) are very confusing colors for links – they’re easily confused with red links and text.

While I appreciate the elegance and thought of this color scheme, might I propose that it stick to changing the background and not changing the link colors? Link color (Wikipedia:Link color) is very important for usability – changing them, either to unfamiliar ones or, worse, so that “active links” look the same color as usual “dead links” is very, very confusing.

As a further issue, note that using <font> tags means that links don’t change in color once visited, further confusing readers.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. I disagree with the "all links should be 4 colors and 4 colors only", but honestly it only applies on a website-wide way. If in a website all links have 4 custom colors it doesn't matter, but if in all the website all links are the "classic four" it should be mantained for consistency. That means, we can use any colors for links, as long as it's consistent across the same website. I will change this links when I come up with a new design for the color scheme (probably a bit less than 1 week). Thanks for being so kind in arguing your position (...being kind is not that usual).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that on a given website it’s not really necessary to stick to The Official Web Colors, and for instance on [5] (my personal webpage), I use a rather different color scheme – but website wide should be consistent.

No rush on changes (I can see that you’re in the middle of working on various pages) – I was just surprised when it looked like all the Buddhism pages had become redlinks!

Thanks, and hope to run into you again.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the color scheme in the simpler version of the template. "black" and "burgundy" have much less prominence, but to "make it fair to all schools" I changed the "very soft yellow" to Mahayana-only... meaning that Mahayana is also focused on "laity". This 2 colors are now "secondary" because other colors already represent the respective schools. If all consider this changes "fair to all schools" then I can proceed to change the color scheme on the bigger template.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

borders

I don't know if using black or burgundry for borders... black is given less "relevance" if it is not used in borders, but burgundry borders look nicer.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

merge "history" with "major figures"?

so that "major figures" becomes "lists of buddhists" (as it's linked) and the links within this former section a list of "historical figures".--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Intuitively, I'm inclined to keep it the way it currently is. I've not responded before because I was hoping that by letting this percolate for a few days I'd be able to more rationally articulate this intuition, but it ain't happening. So, I'll try to do so while recognizing that such lacks logical persuasion.

For me, there's a difference between "major figures" and "history." A "major figures" section to me seems to pull out of history those figures who have an often iconic resonance with newcomers to a tradition, whether or not their historic contributions in the long run is actually seminal. As a clear example of this, in the simple Buddhism version of this template (simple:Template:Buddhism), the Dalai Lama is mentioned; while, over the last 2500 years his contribution is perhaps comparatively uncertain, he nonetheless is a prominent contemporary figure who most Westerners know and who is clearly identified with Buddhism. (Perhaps on the "really simple" Buddhism template we can include Richard Gere? ;-) ) On the other hand, "history" to me implies "events," the turning points that had lasting contributions but are often affectively neutral — such as the Buddhist Councils. These to me are for the person with a more sustained interest and a desire for appreciating matters of greater complexity in terms of details and, perhaps especially, interpretation.

Not persuasive? I know. At the moment though, it's what I've got. So, if you're really still motivated to combine the sections, you can of course go ahead and see if anyone reverts. (I won't.) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

actually... I agree.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

terse version

the "view full index" link doesn't work, it stays as "terse". (it's on the template page)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Esteban –

If one clicks on the tersed template on Template:Buddhism, yes, it does nothing. But, if one clicks on it in an article that actually transcludes the tersed template — such as, Apadāna or Theragatha — then clicking on this field will link one to Template:Buddhism. This is what was intended. Perhaps something different should be done?

Thanks for all your hard work in bringing your commendable vision here to fruition. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

hmm, I thought the point was that if clicked it will make the template bigger (on the same page)... but I don't know how to program that behaviour.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your point. I think in retrospect (and, if it's not obvious, my memory is feeble and often in error), I contemplated doing it the way you suggested and after tinkering unsuccessfully with the <th> and collapsible features, I gave up and simply implemented it as it currently is. If this for some reason becomes a high priority, I can try to make time to investigate further, but I'm thinking the current implementation is sufficiently useful and our time might be better used elsewhere. De accuerdo? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That will be the prefered behaviour. I can investigate it too, but currently the main article of Buddhism is under a major rewrite and it will be nice to help it reclaim "featured article" status. I guess that's the priority now.. and it's "de acuerdo" (spanish) or "d'accordo" (italian) :P

Esteban Barahona (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and I was confusing it with (what I recall to be) French: d'accord. Thanks for correcting me though, I very much appreciate it. Good luck with the rewrite. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fork "terse version"

It's too complicated to mantain a "terse" version, it makes the template much bigger (in KB) and I think it's messing up the design (the borders are different; top and bottom are bigger than left and right... although in code they're the same). At first they can be synched; or one can be the much smaller version of the "default one"... I see more advantages than disadvantages. Also, there's overlaps with "Buddhism2" (now moved to Buddhism-Horizontal) and the terse version of this template.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a simplified (in code) version of this template. So we can use the -simple template for short articles and the -complete template for larger articles.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mahayana sutras

...was thinking of Mahayana texts... yeah, I guess that link should not stay (if we're only refering to "top-level" articles)--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

regions and countries

can we leave just the title... this section can grow to about 100+ countries (eventually), and it's already on the "full index": Template:Buddhism topics

--Esteban Barahona (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to be that only the main regions were mentioned here. Now that has changed and it has become too long. We should indeed make it shorter somehow. Greetings, Sacca 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

but how "chose the regions"? Why not leave just the "regions" and "countries" title?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

THE HISTROY OF BUDDHUSM

BUDDHISM STARED IN 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.150.51 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather unpleasant edits

Hey guys, not much of an editor here, but there was some rather off-putting vandalism here that I reverted earlier tonight, not sure if you guys have any specific policies for reporting stuff like that, but it seemed like the kind of inflamatory stuff where revert first, questions later would be a proper approach. Just thought I'd mention it.

Oops, sorry, bad syntax and I forgot to sign. --69.182.179.20 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

add Criticism of Buddhism to "related topic" section at bottom

I propose to add a link Criticism of Buddhism to "related topic" section at bottom. This would be balanced and neutral, and would be consistent with similar links in the following similar religion templates:

• Template:Roman Catholicism links to Criticism of Catholicism
• Template:Islam links to Criticism of Islam
• Template:Christianity links to Criticism of Christianity
• Template:Latter-day Saints links to Criticism of Mormonism
• Template:Seventh-day Adventism links to Criticism of Seventh-day Adventism
• Template:Hinduism links to Criticism of Hinduism

Granted, the Criticism of Buddhism article is smaller than the other "Criticism of .." articles (although it seems to be missing lots of information in the "Criticism from Marxism" section: the criticisms from Communist China are quite voluminous and varied) but it is balanced and neutral to include the link. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)