Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Accomadating the opposition yet again
2 Kenny
3 Freedom Skies: Accepting a compromise yet again
4 One entrance ... now—act nice
5 Disputed neutrality tag
6 Good work, guys. Appreciated a great deal
- 6.1 "sick joke of an article"
7 origin
8 Again
9 A better encylopedia?

[edit] Accomadating the opposition yet again

If JFD does the same, I am willing to remove all material from the Indian influence article that is not associated with the official shaolin temple, grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, Howard W. French and the Discovery channel. In other words let's hold ourselves to the highest standards for reliable sources in the world on this matter.

Is JFD willing to do so?

Rhetorical questions aside I can accomadate JFD on the opening paragraph in the Bodhidharma article. We have been known to reach compromises despite even more heated debates. If JFD has said that "possibly from Kanchipuram" should be left out then for the third time in this discussion I accomadate the oppositions point of view despite having formidable sources like Encyclopedia Brittanica endorsing my claim.

---

Paragraph I:

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán and Zen sects of Buddhism. <>[1] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[2] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

---

No further changes are acceptable. I have backed down on more than enough despite the citations. This comes despite the cabal insinuating that I have been combative, stubborn and need to be sent off Wikipedia when I seem to be the one bending head over heels to reach a solution and end this. No further changes.

---

Note: The conflicting theories are withdrawn completely from the main page itself following which I withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts withing the theories.

---

Now. Do we have an agreement?

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --MichaelMaggs 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is my proposed source code for the intro.

Bodhidharma is the 6th century Buddhist monk credited as the founder of Zen.
Accounts from the Chinese Buddhist canon concur that Bodhidharma was South Indian and ultimately settled in the kingdom of Wei where he took as disciples Daoyu and Huike, though they differ on much else, such as the date of his arrival in China.

JFD 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is my proposed source code for the intro.

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán/Zen sects of Buddhism. <>[3] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[4] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Since the difference between the two proposed codes appears to be minimal, I would take up the one put forward by Saposcat since I trust him to put togather a neutral article instead of a point-by-point rebuttal.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph does not really describe bodhidharma correctly. we need to add that he is considered only by tradition to be the founder of zen and that most of his life story is considered legends. We also need to write what the academic establishment has talked about his life and should not leave that out. As I state again to all of us involved, why should we be pandering to a biased person who is not willing to listen to facts or reason? It's similar to haveing a wikipedia article on space, and then haveing a nut come along and state that "aliens from mars" have been watching us for years and then changing it to accomodate him on his beliefs on aliens. further, The "indian influence on chinese martial arts" is a nutty article written to support his nutty views. No academic person believes that the stories revolving around Bodhidharma are much more than legend. why should we change the article to state anything less? At the same time why should we change "bodhdiharma, the martial arts, and the disputed indian connection" article at all when everything written there is from an academic source? That article is very balanced as it is. NO ONE is stating that Bodhidharma probably existed.... we are all stating that the stories around him are legend and mythology. Kennethtennyson 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited BY TRADITION as the founder both the Chán/Zen sect of Buddhism. <>[5] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[6] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Oh, yes, freedom skies = you don't know much about zen or chan. They are considered the same sect. Kennethtennyson 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources - I have quite a few sources to back up the fact Bodhidharma was the son of the King of Kanchipuram (or at least a prominent Brahmin family). Rediff in an interview with Jayendra Saraswati (Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram Math). Also the fact is Cited in a Chinese page [7] and Trinidad's Guardian newspaper.Theres another figure Buddhagosa from Kanchi listed in this JSTORBakaman _Bakatalk 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt Bodhidharma was a Tamil (either Buddhist Kshatriya or high caste Buddhist, which makes no sense because Buddhism isnt supposed to recognize caste) from Kanchipuram. The more pressing detail is when he was born, and when he journeyed to the Shaolin ashram.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt Bodhidharma was a Tamil

I've read speculation that Bodhidharma was Telugu like Nagarjuna, in addition to the identification of Bodhidharma as "Central Asian Persian" by Yang Xuanzhi.

Buddhism isnt supposed to recognize caste

If you had read Tanlin, you'd know he actually writes that Bodhidharma was "of South Indian Brahman stock" (Translation: Dumoulin).
Taoyuan likewise writes that Bodhidharma was "the third son of a great Brahman king" (Translation: Suzuki).
In other words, the canonical accounts do not describe Bodhidharma as Brahmin, they describe is ancestry as such.
Of course, someone well-versed in the literature would already know that.

Just as they'd know that Zen and Chan are the same thing.
To describe them as different schools is like referring to "the Deutsch and German languages": the sort of mistake made by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
JFD 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenny

he above paragraph does not really describe bodhidharma correctly.

You continue Kenny. Wikipedia does not cater to your notions of "does not really describe bodhidharma". Wikipedia caters to the notions of the BBC and the Encyclopedia Brittanica's notions.

---

we need to add that he is considered only by tradition to be the founder of zen and that most of his life story is considered legends.

The citations say that he is considered. It's called sourcing.

I allowed "traditionally" in "Mehcanism 1" now we're on Mechanism 4, which is different. Mech 1 had me compromising on "traditionally" and the cabal accepting that he is also commonly associated with Kung fu, which he is.

Unfortunately that did not materialize.

---

We also need to write what the academic establishment has talked about his life and should not leave that out.

Conflicting theories of revision ?

The article Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts deals exclusively with a pro view of them. The article is linked up with the main Bodhidharma article and we're only replacing two short paras and I have suggested that i withdraw my section highlighting the conflicts within these theories as well.

You take it back to square 1, kenny. try keeping up.

---

As I state again to all of us involved, why should we be pandering to a biased person who is not willing to listen to facts or reason?

I agree. let us not be pandering to Kenny who is not willing to listen to facts or reason, not that he has done much editing except reverts though.

---

It's similar to haveing a wikipedia article on space, and then haveing a nut come along and state that "aliens from mars" have been watching us for years and then changing it to accomodate him on his beliefs on aliens.

At least your idiotic outbursts are amusing, Kenny. Keep at it. Next time do Cinderella.

---

further, The "indian influence on chinese martial arts" is a nutty article written to support his nutty views.

Having 80 something sources ?

---

No academic person believes that the stories revolving around Bodhidharma are much more than legend. '

kenny, kenny, kenny. what do say we put that to test. The one with less references loses and leaves Wikipedia forever.

---

At the same time why should we change "bodhdiharma, the martial arts, and the disputed indian connection" article at all when everything written there is from an academic source?

No one asks you to. The very formidable article should continue.

---

I know what he said sounded like a joke but Kenny does that.

Anyways. I did not expect the cabal to reach a solution. They attempt not to allow regular articles. Everything has to be a point by point rebuttal or nothing.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What's further is MichaelMaggs, Bakasuprman agree with my paragraph. I think 202.20.5.206 does too.

Only the cabal remains ike I said they would. Even after me compromising four times they have the shamelessness and the cheek to continue pushing for a point-for-point rebuttal instead of a regular article.

I say put the two paras to poll or something now. Enough is enough.

My suggestion.

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk credited as the founder both the Chán/Zen sects of Buddhism. <>[8] Concise Encyclopedia Brittanica Article on Bodhidharma<><>[9] Religion and ethics- Buddhism (British Broadcasting Corporation)<>Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but it is generally agreed that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China during the Liang Dynasty (502–557), from which he subsequently relocated northwards.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I would temporarily propose for the intro:

Bodhidharma (c. 6th century CE) was the Buddhist monk traditionally credited as the founder of Chán (Zen) Buddhism in China. Very little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend, but most accounts agree that he was a South Indian monk who journeyed to southern China and subsequently relocated northwards. The accounts differ on the date of his arrival, with the earliest account claiming that he arrived during the Liú Sòng Dynasty (420–479) and later accounts dating his arrival to the Liáng Dynasty (502–557). The accounts are, however, generally agreed that he was primarily active in the lands of the Northern Wèi Dynasty (386–534).

All the refs can be found in Dumoulin's history pp. 87–91 and/or in Broughton's Bodhidharma Anthology 54 ff. (and many other reliable places besides).

However, I would also propose that this intro is getting unnecessarily weighted down with what is, to some extent—and let's call a spade a spade here—specialist crap. As a better way to introduce the figure of Bodhidharma, I would propose we actually not start bandying back and forth in the intro about precisely where he was born, where and when he arrived in the Middle Kingdom, et cetera ad nauseum. I think, instead, that—since an intro is supposed to introduce the significance of a person (or "figure")—we instead simply mention, in the place of the whole "The accounts differ" sentence—a new paragraph that talks about his actual significance to Chan/Zen Buddhists (and possibly Shaolin kung fu practitioners as well, though I personally know essentially nothing about that particular field): how he is considered (and note, I say, considered) to be basically the founder—or rather, reinvigorator, since we mustn't forget Gautama Buddha—of the style of meditation used in Chan/Zen (壁觀 bìguān or "wall-gazing"); how he is considered to be the first of the Chinese patriarchs; how he is generally accorded a significance second only to Gautama Buddha himself; et cetera.

I propose this idea because we have to think about the reader: no reader who is relatively unversed in the subject and comes to the article in order to actually learn about Bodhidharma wants to be assaulted immediately with all manner of detailed arguments and counterarguments. These should, of course, be present in the article, but in some sort of "Biography" (or more suitably titled) section; not in the intro, which is make-or-break time for any article (in my reading experience).

Any thoughts on this? Cheers. —Saposcat 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also suggest the separate articles about Bodhidharma and martial arts and disputed Indian origins and whatnot no longer be mentioned here; they may be relevant to the figure of Bodhidharma himself, but they're irrelevant to our attempt to get this article into shape, and their mention only seems to be furthering the sides-taking that's going on (as far as I can see, anyhow). Cheers again. —Saposcat 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Skies: Accepting a compromise yet again

My understanding is that the following paragraph as proposed by Saposcat is used:

No further edits mentioning revisionist claims are made in the main page itself by the cabal following which I withdraw my section dealing exclusively on the conflicting nature of the revisionist claims. There are articles linked up to the main article which deal with the issues in detail.

I accept a compromise yet again because it is proposed by Saposcat, not a member of any cabal.

If we give this the go-ahead then lemme know.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

---

it's odd, freedom skies, but you keep on stating in here that you accept these changes and yet in the chan and zen articles you keep on removing any mention of the fact that it is tradition that associates him with zen/chan. You also remove any mention of the fact that most of his life story is considered legend. It would seem that if we were to agree to an unblock you would do the same in teh other articles. Kennethtennyson 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "(c. 6th century)" is more awkward than "6th century Buddhist monk" but otherwise fine.
JFD 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for putting "(c. 6th century CE)" in parentheses rather than integrating it into the sentence are: (a) it follows Wikipedia guidelines; and (b) it allows for the use of "CE"—which is absolutely necessary—without having to resort to such an extremely awkward double-hyphenated construction as "6th-century-CE Buddhist monk".

In the meantime, any thoughts on my proposal about a second intro paragraph outlining the significance of Bodhidharma to Chan/Zen practitioners (i.e. a paragraph incorporating the basic concepts underlying the legendary material)? Cheers. —Saposcat 05:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One entrance ... now—act nice

The page has been unprotected at my request, and I have put in the introductory paragraph that seemed not to be offensive to anybody. Citations can be easily added if deemed necessary (I made a brief reference to the relevant books and pages in a comment above). Now—let's not get all cabalistic and argumentative, shall we?

In the meantime, I'm going to consider and/or start working on a second paragraph to flesh out the introduction more (and possibly move the info in the current intro's last sentence further down, into the biographical section); that is, a second paragraph with the basic ideas behind the legendary material, so as to provide more information about Bodhidharma's actual significance. Still waiting for thoughts on this matter, assistance, et cetera ... Cheers. —Saposcat 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed neutrality tag

As part of the agreement, I'm proposing to remove this tag from the top of the page. Just checking that's ok ... --MichaelMaggs 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll just go ahead and do it. Cheers. — Saposcat 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wary of the cabal. They'll not relent from pushing the red Han Chinese agenda. Take a look at Yi Jin Jing for the sick joke of an article the cabal has made it, all for turning it into a-point-for-point rebuttal despite them having an article exclusively catering to even this agenda (Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts).

Since additional editors, already privy to all POVs are involved I won't object to it. Done by Saposcat and proposed by MichaelMaggs, it has my backing.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work, guys. Appreciated a great deal

First my best regards to Saposcat and MichaelMaggs, without whom an agreement would have been impossible.

Kindly take a look at Bodhidharma#Bodhidharma_and_the_Martial_Arts. The article Indian influence on Chinese martial arts has been altered to Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts as the influences are many from many countries. Would someone rename Indian influence on Chinese martial arts to Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts in Bodhidharma#Bodhidharma_and_the_Martial_Arts? I'll refrain from editing here for now as should the cabal.

Thanks in advance.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of reading your ramblings... since you would rather read a book by a lay person rather than a book by a professor of history on google scholar, why don't you look at the intro to this book... it's an amazon best seller. read the introduction on page 2 and page 3 [[10]] Zen existed before bodhidharma in china on page 2 and then on page 3... most scholars consider bodhidharma to be just a legend. sorry for bursting your bubble... you also should get some prozac for your paranoia. there is no cabal... just people tired of your pov pushing. Kennethtennyson 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of reading your ramblings

As long as you keep up the martians and Cinderella routines I cannot say the same of you, Kenny.

since you would rather read a book by a lay person rather than a book by a professor of history on google scholar

I'll read Encyclopedia Brittanica. You have to quit the routine about "lay" people, when you and I have accomplishments that surpass the men in question then we earn the right to call them lay or otherwise. Calling people lay in a serious tone, people from either side of the divide, highlights your mentality.

why don't you look at the intro to this book

should we hold that to a challenge ? The one who brings more books to the table wins, the one who does not quits Wikipedia forever.

Lemme know.

most scholars consider bodhidharma to be just a legend

Actually scholars believe stories like eyelids falling off and tea, stories which surround religious figures like jesus Christ, Prophet Mohammed and Siddhartha Gautama exist. Scholars do not believe that Bodhidharma himself as a living and breathing flesh and bones human being did not exist.

Zen existed before bodhidharma

Buddhism existed before Siddhartha Gautama. The impact of him identifying margas (paths) from a wider philosophy are not undermined. He is the founder of the unique philosophy.

you also should get some prozac for your paranoia

Despite your suggestion, which no doubt is based on extensive experience, I don't do pills. I'll pass.

there is no cabal

Are you trying to say you don't follow JFD and do what he does? Observe this, this, this, this . Again more citations will be provided on request.

just people tired of your pov pushing

POV pushing, POV pushing........now where have I heard that before? Oh, the Yi Jin Jing article? Isn't it tailor made for a point-by-point rebuttal than a description of a book?

Anyways, I'm taking a wikibreak soon. Judging by your recent actions, the cabal should too.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "sick joke of an article"

If anyone is curious to see what inspired Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, please see this, which one admin described as an "unreferenced, rambling, highly opinionated personal rant".

Are you trying to say you don't follow JFD and do what he does?

Hi Bakaman!
Welcome to the Bodhidharma discussion page!
Haven't seen you here before!
JFD 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned above is further verification of the fact that the cabal operates in order to create point-by-point rebuttals to cater to their han Chinese agendas, not encyclopedic articles.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] origin

If you see my posts earlier in the page, he is from Kanchipuram . See interview with Jayendra Saraswati, and other sources I found with a quick google and google book search. Also kenny, see legend. Legend is little more than embellished stories stemming from fact. Legend is based on fact meaning much of Bodhidharma is embellishment, but the basics (Kanchipuram, high-casat Buddhist origin, yoga master, establishment of shaolin) is obviously true. One should (by reading the article) be able to discern the facts from the Chinese legend. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kanchipuram: Shows up nowhere in canonical Buddhist sources. That JSTOR article is the first time I've ever seen it in a reliable source.

high-casat Buddhist origin: Canonical Buddhist sources do refer to Brahmin ancestry.

yoga master: Appears nowhere in canonical Buddhist sources.

establishment of shaolin: Appears nowhere in canonical Buddhist sources.

JFD 02:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kanchipuram

Not quite, The son of a pallava king resides in the capital of the Pallavas. The capital of the Pallava empire happend to be Kanchipuram.

high-cast Buddhist origin

As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya- Manu Smriti X:65

People of kayastha origin like PM Lalbahaur have been known as brahmins (shastris) due to their knowledge, ditto for Vivekanada Dutta.

Societies of scholars have called themselves Brahmins and Pundits as well.

yoga master

A Dyana master, meaning a very well versed Yogi. As is the opinion of authorities related to the subject.

establishment of shaolin

That was batuo. Wong Kiew Kit the authority on Shaolin arts does refer to him in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts.

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kanchipuram: Where does "Kanchipuram" appear in canonical Buddhist sources in reference to Bodhidharma?; Where does the Pallava dynasty appear in canonical Buddhist sources in reference to Bodhidharma?; NOWHERE

high-caste Buddhist origin: Wasn't so much disputing as clarifying.

yoga master

A Dyana master, meaning a very well versed Yogi. As is the opinion of authorities related to the subject.

Authorities such as...?

Names please.

establishment of shaolin

Wong Kiew Kit the authority on Shaolin arts does refer to him in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts.

Where?

JFD 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Replies - With all the horizontal lines, this page is a mess. Rediff is a mainstream paper, and Jayendra Saraswati (otherwise known as the Shankaracharya of Kanchi) has cited Bodhidharma. I was confused with Buddhabhadra about the shaolin thing, and never said Pallava dynasty. You do know that Buddhist texts are not the only thing one can cite on wikipedia, there are other sources lol.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again

[edit] Connection with Kanchipuram

---

The Dharma Master was a South Indian of the Western Region. He was the third son of a great Indian king

Bodhidharma travels by sea to southern China

---

The third son of a great Indian king. In south India, there have been three great kingdoms, Pallavas, Cholas and Cheras

---

Cholas became great kingdoms during the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. This was much after Bodhidharma's time so we need not concern ourselves with them.

---

Kodungallur

Cheras, with capital at Kodungallur and Karur (which is not linked to sea).

So let's see, prince to a great south Indian kingdon making his way to southern China from the western coast of India, not possible.

---

Kanchipuram

Pallavas, with their capital established at Kanchipuram in the 4th cent. CE. The son resides in the capital, capital is Kanchipuram. If the account does say that he was' a son of a great king from south India and he made it to southern China by sea all indications are towards this one kingdom, and it's capital, very strategically located.

If it is a prince from a south Indian kingdom who made it to China by sea, the strongest indication, as endorsed by Encyclopedia Brittanica, is that he was from the capital of the Pallavas -- Kanchipuram.

That is why most sources believe that he was from Kanchipuram, Encyclopedia Brittanica and all.

---

[edit] Wong Kiew Kit

---

Wong Kiew Kit the authority on Shaolin arts does refer to him in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts.

Where?

JFD 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

---

in his homepage, JFD

About 150 years later in CE 527 the great Bodhidharma, a prince-turned-monk, came from India to teach Zen at the Shaolin Monastery. Since then the Shaolin Monastery has become the fountainhead of Zen Buddhism, which is a major school of. Mahayana Buddhism. Bodhidharma left behind as a legacy three great sets of exercise, namely Eighteen Lohan Hands, Sinew Metamorphosis and Marrow Cleansing. Eighteen Lohan Hands became the forerunner of Shaolin Kungfu, and Sinew Metamorphosis the forerunner of Shaolin Chi Kung. "Bone Marrow" in Chinese medical terms is not just the bone marrow in Western terms, but figuratively refers to the nerves. The great Bodhidharma is honoured and worshipped as the First Patriarch of the Shaolin arts, as well as of Zen Buddhism.

Your quote, in full:

That was batuo. Wong Kiew Kit the authority on Shaolin arts does refer to him in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts.

Where does Wong Kiew Kit refer to Batuo in similar terms regarding his role in martial arts?

[edit] Yoga

---

Tradition holds that Bodhidharma's chosen sutra was the Lankavatara Sutra, a development of the Yogacara or school of Buddhism.

Sanskrit: “Practice of Yoga [Union]

Yogacara means to practice yoga. [11]

A monk in the Shaolin practices Yoga, the grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit himself revers him. Self elplainatory.

---

[edit] Bakasuprman

The amount of malice you displayed towards bakaman is too low even for you, JFD.

Michael Maggs apperared on the Indian influence on Chinese martial arts article as well. I extended my best regards to him and replied to his every question, I talked to him. i did not subject someone to misbehaviour like you did to Bakasuprman, instead I explained and talked to him.

202.20.5.206 appeared there as well. I talked to him, i made the article neutral to the extent of naming it "Foreign Influence", he replied to previous changes in making the article more neutral by saying he appreciated them.

People related to you in the past came to an article I largely contributed to, what do I do ? I talk to MichaelMaggs and extend my regards to him.

Bakasuprman contributes in your words "the only reliable piece of evidence" (JSTOR) about Bodhidharma and you subject him to abuse.

I never abused your aquaintences. I do get blamed for being combative, stubborn, unreasonable but I was not uncivil to MichaelMaggs, your aquaintence. He came to the article following a conversation with the cabal.

You abused mine, JFD. A distasteful act which highlights your pervese mentality.

I kept it to the cabal of you and Kennthtennyson, the barnstar couple, not to your aquaintences who took intrest in your business. I draw the line there, they are not the cabal but just their aquaintences.

You obviously have other principles of morality, JFD. Low ones.

The good thing is that you,JFD, not me is the one who'll have to live with it.

---

Freedom skies (send a message to Freedom skies) 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The amount of malice you displayed towards bakaman is too low even for you, JFD.

I think I'll let Bakaman be the judge of whether I've behaved maliciously towards him or not.[12][13]
JFD 12:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pushing an agenda

They'll not relent from pushing the red Han Chinese agenda.

By the way, speaking of nationalist agendas:

"The science of medicine originates in Ancient India"[14]

"Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin of martial arts"[15]

"if the archealogical survey near Dwarka completes the unearthing of an undersea civilization which might be the oldest in human history, thereby making India the cradle of human civilization."[16]

JFD 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A better encylopedia?

Please consider, all of you, whether any of this is going to change anyone's mind. No. Is it going to help build a better encylopedia? No. Are any of you actually enjoying this? Unlikely. I suggest you all take a deep breath, accept that you won't agree and stop worrying about who's going to have the last word. None of this is worth it. --MichaelMaggs 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What is going to build a better encyclopedia is standards.

Standards such as the official Wikipedia standards for reliable sources:

third-party publication
peer-review
academic journals or university presses

What is not going to build a better encyclopedia are stunts like taking the following passage from an article[17] that makes no mention of martial arts—

In the sixth century, the Buddhist monk Bodhidharma came to China from India. Once, while meditating, he fell asleep, and this lapse so enraged him that he tore off his eyelids: no eyelids, no more sleep. The eyelids fell, and where they fell, two bushes soon grew. Bodhidharma put leaves of the bushes in boiled water, and when he drank the water he found he was more alert. His meditating improved. Tea-drinking was introduced to China.

—describing its writer as a "martial arts author"[18] and citing it as an endorsement of the historicity of Bodhidharma.

Nor will falsely citing sources for material.[19]

I'm afraid I must disagree with you, Michael, because I do think that holding Wikipedia to high standards—especially in the face of such deception and dissembly—is worth it and does, in fact, make for a better encyclopedia.
JFD 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, None of the conversations on this Talk page since the article was unprotected have contributed to anything except inflamed passions. --MichaelMaggs 15:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I shall do my best to keep my contributions to the discussion to just that: contributions.
JFD 15:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/d/Talk%7EBodhidharma_Archive_3_b980.html"