User:FWBOarticle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Me
Started geting involved with Wikipedia by editing FWBO article, hence my name. I'm fluent in Engrish. For this reason, I don't edit article unless it has obvious flaws such as missing vital information or POV bias. Occasionall, I attempt to rearrange entire article which appear to have structural fault in narrative. The best example so far is this article about capital punishment. For a while, did editing as Yoji Hajime.
My wiki brief is that each individual article should be clear, concise and efficient webpage.
If anyone find my Engrish hard to read, here is advice. Forget plural or singular. It's unnecessaly concept (like noun gender) which English launguage should get rid of. :D
Comment: Either you are fluent in English or you can't distinguish between singular & plural. It's not possible be both.
- I'm fluent in Engrish and consequently being both is logical necessity. (^_^)
[edit] Edit Template 1
Wikipedian Sith
Wikipedian Siths are a group of people who revel in edit war while observing the letter, if not the spirit, of Wikipedia policies and guideline. They explore wikipedia in search of conflict. They will wage delete war ostensibly for the lack of citation or verification. They pump article with their side of arguments (with proper attribution) but never present counter argument even if they are aware of it. They use every opportunity to imply that the other side is biased, citing techinical violation of Wikipedia policies relating to NPOV. Moreover, wikipedia Sith frequently bait the opposing side to voilate wikipedia etiquette by trashing the opponents argument. If a careless wikipedian commit any techinical violation such as three revert rule or making implicit criticism of a person rather than an argument, wikipedian sith will mercilessly exploit such violation to the full extent.
Even though they are in direct conflict with the idea that Wikipedia is not a battle ground, some recognise that Wikipedian siths serve useful purpose. Wikipedia sith always attract other Wikipedia siths on the other side of the debate which somewhat bring the Force into the balance. Because any views, which are properly attributed and cited, are immune from the attack, the battle of seasoned sith lords contribute significantly to the increase of article content as well as articles' adherenace to wikipedia policies. Moreover, anyone who duel with Wikipedian Sith will gain sigfinificant insight into the working of wikipedian policies.
Many Wikipedian Jedi find Wikipedian Sith extremly hard to deal with. Because wikipedian sith push their agenda without violating technicality of wikipedian policy, the battle between the biased and the neutral could end up in the stalemate at the middle position which may be slightly in favour of Sith agenda. This often induce Wikipedian Jedi to shift its tactics to the opposing side of Sith. However, at this point, a Jedi has fallen. Any subsequent battle only feed the insatiable appetite for conflict by both sides. Even if one side "defeat" the opponent through his superior masterly of policies, the balance of the force in the article is still disturbed and this will eventually attract more powerfull and able Sith lord in the future.
Wikipedian sith can be truly defeated if not elimiated by true mastery of the Wikipedian policies both in the spirit and the techivicality. This usually involve meticulous attribution of conflicting viewpoints which elimiate the ground in which Wikipedian sith can feed upon. However, if force battle is not stopped in earnest, the article could bloat to the point where every section of the article is duplicate battle of every other sections. At this point, the article could be declared as force toxic. Clean up of such article require substantial rearrangement of overall landscape with expert understanding of particluar topic. Anyone who can perform such cleansing ritual are considered as a true Wikipedian Jedi Master.
[edit] Verifiability criteria should be re-defined in term of Reliability
I come from Nanking Massacre page which has gone through repeated protection due to recurrent edit/delet war. In my view, the problem is that many claims and counter-claims of atrocities in Nanking Massacre controversy are from published souce. Consequently, both side pump the page with "published" claims and counter claim of atrocities then each side try delete or "contxtualise" each claim and counter claim in their favour. Because these claim can easily cross the threshhold of "verifiablity" (and no original research) criteria, neither criteria were really helpful. I have checked Reliable sources guideline but the current state of guidline only indicate the minimum requirement for verifiablity criteria which wasn't helpful.
"Reliability" of source, IMO, should be defined in term of the process in which information is produced. For example, general journalism usually process information from publically avaiable source amd they are subject to lible/defamation law. Therefore, general journalism are relaible source of fact regarding "current" event or personality. Similarly, academic papers are reliable source of that particlur field of topic due to the peer review process. On the other hand, if I cite archival primary sources (such as in the case of Nanking Massacre), this may not be "reliable" because I did not specify, what process I have obtained such information. More nuanced example is a book "Robert B. Edgerton, Warriors of the Rising Sun:: A History of the Japanese Military" which was cited in Nanking Massacre page. The book is certainly a "verified" source. But I have discovered that the author's background is cultural antholopology. So the source is verified but are less reliable
[edit] Edit Template 3
Mahayana Buddhism which probably started as an ecumenical laity movement received a significant theoretical formalisation by Nagarjuna (c.150 - 250 CE), arguably the most influential scholars within Mahayana tradition. From studying his writings, it is clear that Nāgārjuna was conversant with both the Nikaya/Hinayana philosophies and the emerging Mahāyāna tradition. He is mostly likely to be a Māhayānist as he makes explicit references to Mahayana texts while his philosophy holds assiduously within the parameters set out by the Tripitaka sutras. In complete repudiation to then dominant Sarvastivada school which argue for the existence of dharma in past, present, and future, Nāgārjuna asserted that the nature of the dharma (hence the enlightenment) to be śūnyatā (void or emptiness), bringing together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anatta (no-self) and pratitya-samutpada (dependent origination). His school of thought is known as Madhyamaka.
After the end of the Kushans, Buddhism flourished in India during the dynasty of the Guptas (4th–6th century). Mahayana centres of learning were established, the most important one being the Nalanda University in north-eastern India. Sarvastivada teaching, which was criticised by Nagarjuna was reformulated by scholars such as Vasubandhu and Asanga and were incorporated into Yogacara (sanskrit: yoga practice) school. While the Madhyamaka school asserted that there is no ultimately real thing, the Yogācāra school asserts that only the mind is ultimately existent. These two school of thoughts, in opposition or synthesis, form the basis of subsequent Mahayana theology.
There are differing views as to just when Vajrayana and it's tantric practice started. In the Tibetan tradition, it is claimed that the historical Shakyamuni Buddha taught tantra, but as these are esotoric teachings, they were written down long after the Buddha's other teachings. The earliest texts appeared around the early 4th century. Still Nalanda University became a center for the development of Vajrayana theory and continue as the source of leading-edge Vajrayana practices up through the 11th century. These practice, scriptures and theory were transmitted to China, Tibet, Indo China and South East Asia. China generally received Indian transmission upto 11 century including tantric pracitce while a vast amount of what is considered to be Tibetan Buddhism (Vajrayana) stems from the late (9th-12th century) Nalanda trandtion.
