Jump to content

Talk:Dai Gohonzon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:
What needs to happen is that the page numbers that the Dai Gohonzon info comes from in these or other sources needs to be a part of in-line citations in this article and in the Nichren article, too.
What needs to happen is that the page numbers that the Dai Gohonzon info comes from in these or other sources needs to be a part of in-line citations in this article and in the Nichren article, too.


I disagree with you that the Dai Gohonozon info as it appeared in the original Nichiren article needs to be there. Perhaps in a different form that it was it would okay. For instance in a section called "Dai Gohonzon" or one called "Nichiren Controversies." But the [[Nichren]] article is already long. And a separate article on the Dai Gohonzon provides room for a full exploration of the topic.--[[User:Faith Likewater|Faith Likewater]] 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you that the Dai Gohonozon info as it appeared in the original Nichiren article needs to be there. Perhaps the Dai Gohonzon info presented in a different format would work in that article. For instance in a section called "Dai Gohonzon" or one called "Nichiren Controversies." But the [[Nichren]] article is already long. And a separate article on the Dai Gohonzon provides room for a full, balanced exploration of the topic.--[[User:Faith Likewater|Faith Likewater]] 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:34, 27 July 2007

I am starting a page on the Dai Gohonzon.

Please help if you like.

Thanks.

Faith--Faith Likewater 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by an editor on the Nichiren article talk page, I moved this information from it's original page (Nichiren) to this one to create a new page specifically on the Dai Gohonzon because the Dai Gohonzon is only considered legitimate by one Nichiren Shoshu school (the Fuji branch) and therefore does not warrant a large section in an article on Nichiren's life. Rather, it warrants it's own separate page and/or a mention in an article about controversies related to Nichiren. The article which originally contained this material listed the Dai Gohonzon under the heading "Completion of Mission in the World" which is a subjective, not scholarly, heading. In any case, this "Dai Gohonzon" page is in progress, not intended to be complete at this point.--Faith Likewater 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help clean up this page by using in-line citations and removing text that is biased toward a particular Nichiren sect's dogma, traditions, and legends. Most of the current text is not cited and verified, or it is not cited and verified in the words of Nichiren, his contemporaries, or scholars whose work relates to him, his time, and/or his teachings. Thanks much. --Faith Likewater 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working from and citing primary sources is against Wikipedia policy; see WP:ATT. Note that if you write based on your interpretation of primary sources, rather than describe what’s presented in secondary ones, you will be leaving your hard work open to unconditional removal by other editors who will cite original research (see WP:NOR) as grounds.

Further, depending on what you mean, removing text that is “biased toward a particular Nichiren sect’s dogma” is potentially also against Wikipedia policy: the point is not to remove descriptions of one or the other school’s versions of a story, it is to balance them with descriptions of opposing versions of the story; see WP:NPOV.

Fwiw, I think your removal of the section on the Dai-Gohonzon from the Nichiren article is also undesirable: The story was already balanced out (to some extent, at least—it was not very well done, I concede) with presentation of opposing views. If anything, that article needs further citations (not “cites,” whatever they are) to substantiate the descriptions of both sides’ versions, not deletion of “bias.” Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jim,

These two sources are listed as references for the Dai Gohonzon article because I lifted them from the original Nichiren article:

The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Soka Gakkai, 1999 (available online here.)

The Life of Nichiren Daishonin. Kirimura, Yasuji. NSIC, 1980

I left the followiing two sources that are on the Nichiren page off of the listed references for th Dai Gohonzon article. But I have no problem listed them here. I just left them out because it appeared to me that all the info from the Dai Gohonzon section came from the 1st two books:

The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, hard cover, Burton Watson, Translator, Soka Gakkai, 2005, ISBN 4-412-01286-7

The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism (Seikyo Press), Tokyo, 2002. Available on line here

What needs to happen is that the page numbers that the Dai Gohonzon info comes from in these or other sources needs to be a part of in-line citations in this article and in the Nichren article, too.

I disagree with you that the Dai Gohonozon info as it appeared in the original Nichiren article needs to be there. Perhaps the Dai Gohonzon info presented in a different format would work in that article. For instance in a section called "Dai Gohonzon" or one called "Nichiren Controversies." But the Nichren article is already long. And a separate article on the Dai Gohonzon provides room for a full, balanced exploration of the topic.--Faith Likewater 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]