User talk:Kipholbeck

Welcome!

Hello, Kipholbeck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 06:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia stylee

Hi, Kipholbeck! Thanks for your work copyediting some stuff. I wanted to let you know that accepted Wikipedia style so far calls for Buddha to be capitalised. But, bodhisattva should not be capitalised. I'm not completely sure about Nirvana, but it appears to be capitalised throughout the article on Nirvana, so I would recommend going along with that.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello, Nat.

I hope I am doing the right thing, sending you a message by editing your talk page. This is the first time I have sent anyone a message through Wikipedia. If I am not going about it the right way, please let me know.

Thank you for your message about capitalisation.

Regarding the capitalisation of "nirvana", I came to the conclusion that it would be better written in lower case for the reasons stated hereinafter.

1. My understanding is that a noun in English should be capitalised only if there is a specific reason to do so. Suitable reasons include: the noun is a proper noun; the noun occurs at the beginning of a sentence. Neither of these seem to apply in the case of "nirvana".

2. I have garnered the impression that Wikipedia articles on Eastern religions are often created or edited by persons for whom English is not a native language. Many languages have more extensive capitalisation than is common in English, and I believe that some people may be incorrectly carrying over the capitalisation rules of their native languages to English.

3. Over the years, I have noticed a tendency for people to capitalise words which refer to concepts to do with their own religions. This seems to be because these concepts are of particular emotional importance to them personally. I believe this practice to be inappropriate in an encyclopedia.

4. I happened to be browsing the Dalai Lama's website and saw that it was in lower case there. :-)

Regarding the capitalisation of "buddha", I think that it should be capitalised when it refers to a specific buddha, such as Gautama Buddha, but not when it does not refer to a particular personage as in the sentence "Everyone will become a buddha". Some of the reasons I have mentioned for "nirvana" not to be capitalised also apply, I think.

I will be interested to hear your further thoughts on the matter.

Cheers,

Andrew Scott (Kipholbeck) 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, kip. I personally have no strong preference about the capitalisation of nirvana. Actually, I have no strong preference about any of this stuff, but, it's fine with me if you want to change all instances of nirvana to the lower case. I'm still thinking about whether Buddha should be capitalised generally. We tentatively decided a couple years ago (here) to do that on the basis of a reference in the OED. Lowercase "buddha" also looks awkward to my eye.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, Nat.

Capitalisation on the basis of the perceived importance of a particular word’s referent - which seems to be the tacit justification for universal capitalisation of such a word as 'buddha' – is arguably not the best course.

Arguments against:

lack of universal agreement that the referent is important enough to make the word a special case with regard to capitalisation (Would a Muslim, a Christian, or an atheist agree?)
it would justify the capitalisation of a great many other words (e.g., saint, angel, messiah, prophet, seer), none of which are normally capitalised in English except under the rules already mentioned.

I have read the archived discussion on capitalisation you directed me to. I find it interesting that the quote from the OED uses ‘Buddhas’ and ‘infallible religious teachers’, apparently as synonyms, yet capitalises only the former. I can’t think of a good reason why this is so.

Further along in the discussion, one of the participants states: ‘[…] Buddha always carries enough of a charge (laudative, sacred, etc.) that it makes sense to me to always capitalize it […]’. I question whether every reader would consider that ‘buddha’ carries such a charge.

One of the things I love most about a good encyclopedia is its impartiality, so I think it is worthwhile adhering to clearly stated rules to preserve that impartiality.

Cheers,

Andrew

--

Yoga poll

Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana#Opinion Poll on this article's name. Davin7 09:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Rape

While I don't think that the change you made was worth a "Barn Star", Please consider this a "Pat On The Back";-).