Talk:Lotus position

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Lotus position, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that picture depict a man in half-lotus position?

--I don't even think it is a half-lotus, since that should mean one foot is resting on top of the other thigh. In this picture, the foot is just resting in the crook between the upper and lower portions of the other leg. Perhaps this picture should be replaced with the picture under Zazen, which is an accruate portrayal. --Jleon 20:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Quas hay

[edit] Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "proper" breathing

Any particular reason why we need scare quotes there? --Geoff Capp 09:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How much is fair use?

I question whether the new Instructions section, begun in this revision by Johanflod (talk • contribs) and including an extensive (though cited) quote, really constitutes fair use. Anyone with a good understanding of the law and Wikipedia policy care to comment one way or the other? Perhaps it would be better off rewritten and cited, just to play safe. --Geoff Capp 11:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure looks like copyvio to me. I came here to ask the same question. I'll add a copyvio template. Mglg 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Instructions section since nobody has defended its copyright status. Instructions aren't really what Wikipedia is about anyway. mglg_(talk) 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)