Talk:Maitreya Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope 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 Maitreya Project, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maitreya Project article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: Oct - Nov 2007


Contents

[edit] Draft Rewrite

Given the below disputes over POV, I have taken the liberty to post a draft rewrite of the article on a sub page, linked below.

Comments and edits from other editors and admins are appreciated. If a general consensus can be reached that this rewrite is from NPOV, then I would replace the existing article with this one ASAP.

Talk:Maitreya Project/Draft Rewrite

Simmonstony 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, is there any reason why we can't - as is normal here - simply discuss content and edit the article Maitreya Project in situ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonofcartoon (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No Problem at all from my point of view. What I was trying to get at, being a relatively new user, was what exactly in the style of the article caused problems, and if the style of the draft was sufficiently different to act as a remedial to those problems. Basically, I was looking for some guidance (Yes, I have read the relevant Wikipedia Policies). It seems that some users are very quick to flag what they see as problems (which is correct), but not willing to put any time into a remedial. For example, do you personally feel that the new draft reads like an advert or has POV problems. To me, it seems to state the Project's intentions, reference outside articles and work commissioned. Your opinion is appreciated
By the way, when I started to edit this article, there was a lot of incorrect and badly research criticism, with links to unreliable sources that had been proved to be unreliable of fabricated in content. That is why I began to edit this particular article, however it is also an interest of mine. Simmonstony 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, at this instant I'm less concerned about the specifics of the text than about getting on an even keel the relationship of editors to this article. I'm still getting the impression that you see it as your role to monitor the article and guide other editors during the revision process. If this is the case, please get rid of this idea; it's not how Wikipedia works. This is particularly the case if you have a close relationshop to the project. Gordonofcartoon 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I never see it as my role to monitor the article any more than it is any editors role to monitor any article. Anything I have posted in relation to the draft article that I wrote is meant as a guide only. I have repeatedly asked other editors for comments and assistance, however nobody seems interested in improving the article, just in stating what is wrong with it. I have responded by removing the content that I have posted, however you reverted that, which is a little contradictory.. No? Simmonstony 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the last few comments at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Simmonstony.--Addhoc 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to basics

Seeing as the current article has been seen as biased by other editors, I have removed all of my own additions, and left a very basic and brief 3 paragraph overview, which states verifiable facts in a dry style. This is a skeleton which can be fleshed out by others. I will continue to monitor the article as the project is controversial and biased negative content has been posted previously, and probably will be again.

I would ask other editors to please review my draft article linked from this page, as it contains more details information that may be of use in developing this article further.

Simmonstony 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I am really confused. I am accused of bias, and therefore, in good faith, remove the content I have posted on this article, and then Gordonofcartoon who is an accuser reverts my deletions so that the supposed biased content is visible again. Can you please explain? Simmonstony 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete ref currently #4
> India's 1,000 year Buddha underway. Priyath Liyanage. BBC. Retrieved on 2007-10-09.
should include date published: Friday, 4 May, 2001, 20:12 GMT 21:12 UK David Woodward 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Addhoc 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ref currently #6 - Daniel Pepper Article. Artcile by Daniel Pepper. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on 10 November 2007.
title: "Indian farmers oppose giant Buddha statue"
typo: "Artcile by Daniel Pepper" should read "Article by Daniel Pepper" or perhaps just "Pepper, Daniel" to start the ref
date of publication: September 10, 2007
I find Magnus' "Make Reference" useful for composing refs.
ref currently #7 - Maitreya Project Clarification. Maitreya Project Update. Maitreya Project International. Retrieved on 10 November 2007.
title should perhaps be: "Maitreya Project, Latest Update, September 2007"
There is also a more recent update available "Maitreya Project Update, November 2007", currently at maitreyaproject.org David Woodward 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then i would suggest removing "Pepper, Daniel Indian farmers oppose... The Christian Science Monitor, September 10, 2007" from external links, since it is listed in refs David Woodward 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Archived

In order to clear this page for further discussion, I have archived it here

Talk:Maitreya Project/Archived Talk 1

Simmonstony 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[Now Talk:Maitreya Project/Archive 1 as per standard talk archive naming. — Athaenara ✉ 23:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)]
  • in my opinion this archiving is inappropriate given the current mediation David Woodward 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think this archiving is inappropriate too, given the ongoing discussions. I think Simmonstony is making it difficult for us to move forward... Johnfos 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that archiving active discussions is a bad idea.
“… it is best to avoid archiving in the midst of an active discussion so that the full context of the discussion is together”
“you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page.”
(Quotes from Help:Archiving a talk page.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the prematurely archived sections, which remain in the archive as well. They should not be archived until editor consensus (not one editor acting alone) determines that all of the issues discussed in them have been resolved. — Athaenara ✉ 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i would be happy to see most of this talk page archived now, Simmonstony has very gracefully stated position on COI noticeboard page. I note Athaenara has marked the COI issue as resolved David Woodward 09:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] declerations of affiliations

i would like to see declarations of affiliations of parties involved in mediation in this article to Maitreya Project International and its related legal entities. David Woodward 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have a general interest in Buddhism, but normally write WP articles on renewable energy, and don't have any direct association with, or strong feelings about, the Maitreya project. Johnfos 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • i have been reading about, discussing and studying the Buddha Dharma informally for some years. I have not taken refuge officially in any way, although i have personally and privately taken a Bodhisattva vow. I intend to take refuge with a branch of Tibetan Buddhism at some stage. I have no affiliation with the Maitreya Project. I have been independently researching the Maitreya Project as a result of my perceptions of NPOV of this article. At the request of Johnfos, i ceased to edit the article as at 31 October 2007. I do have strong feelings about the Maitreya Project. David Woodward 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
David, please accept my apologies -- I didn't mean you to stop editing the article! But, yes, we were working through POV issues at the time. Your calm and measured approach to the editing process has contrasted to that of Simmonstony. I appreciate that you have not been pushing your POV. Wish you well... Johnfos 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes he could. In fact, I have never tried to hide who I was, which is why I chose to use my real name as a username for this article, I have previously used a pseudonym for editing articles, however I dropped that about a year ago and have not really been back to wikipedia as an editor since. That i now resurface was not singularly because of the Maitreya Project article, and i have started to do some minor edits to other Buddhism related articles (well, 1 so far).
I need to point out that (a) you should assume good faith even if their is a perceived COI. (b) The fact that I am not hiding behind a username and am discussing on the talk page would tend to say that that I am being upfront (From the Wikipedia COI page "an editor with a self-evident conflict of interest turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, and refer to policy, sources and above all be fair." (c) Even though their is a perceived conflict of interests due to connection with the project (though not financial), Wikipedia policy would still allow me to edit this page. There was one editor involved who stated that even though poilcy did not prohibit this, it did not mean that it was correct. This is criticising Wikipedia Policy, so please try to change this policy if you feel it is incorrect. And remember, I really want to make this a good article so you can always Ignore all rules and assume good faith.
I agree that any major changes be posted first on a the talk page so as editors can agree. At least for now, as its been a hot topic. I also agree to archive most of this talk page.
I have updated again Talk:Maitreya Project/Draft Rewrite that I posted. It contains some useful information and references that David or others may want to use.
And one more request to David. Please be sure of the facts before you post them. Previously in the criticism section you posted things which were completely irrelevant, such as the fact that the project had an old entity in Uk which had been closed. This is not really a criticism. I believe that you also contacted FPMT by phone to discuss certain matters that may not have been of great consequence. Hence, I would also feel that their may be COI issues with yourself, as you are obviously very involved in research into what you see as the negative side of the project. I am first to acknowledge that there is criticism, and that those who criticise feel they have a valid point, however the criticism should also not read like an political ad at election time, dragging the other party through the mud to a greater extent than required.
Simmonstony 05:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

[edit] Responses to RfC

Article seems OK as it stands. Could you state the precise point of dispute as this is not clear to someone who has not been involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

I wanted to thank Athaenara for her perceptive comments (now archived) about the article reading like an advertisement. This is part of what I was getting at earlier about the article having a promotional tone and not being NPOV. Johnfos 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Johnfos. The problem was defining the specifics, as it was a global stylistic thing: the relentless positivity, every sentence bolstering how everything is for the good. (Nearest comparison I can think of is a local press charity story: The Cake Project is baking the largest ever cake this weekend. Mr Miggs, speaking for the Cake Project, said "The cake will feed 500 orphans. In addition it will provide much-needed work for regional flour and egg suppliers" etc etc). Gordonofcartoon 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Johnfos, I am not saying that the article was not NPOV, but will you please explain, for the benefit of those who did not think it was NPOV, how it is a violation of NPOV? Also, if someone reverts it back, do not get in a edit war. Stick to 1RR. Edit wars will only make things worse.--SJP 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Gordon. Thanks so much for the cake example. That explains things well, and if someone had explained that to me earlier, I would have simply rewritten my edits to avoid appearing that way. Now.. a small dilemma. If a non profit project or charity is in the development stages, and the genuine intention is solely to benefit people by doing good works, is it really possible to write anything about that organisation without it looking like an advert? If the only real things to state about the project are the plans and intentions, and the plans and intentions are all to do genuinely good, then what else can one really write (apart from allowing criticism which was always given some space)? I think that westerners particularly have become hardened and cynical to the point that it is hard to believe that a project or organisation may really exist only to help others, so therefore stating that intention will always appear as self propaganda / advertising. Simmonstony 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not that it can't be said, or that anyone's cynical; it's just the style of saying it. Looking in detail, what was particularly advert-y about the original was the overloading of the basic information with superlatives that just countersink the obvious. For example, the Design of the Maitreya Statue section: phraseologies like "state-of-the-art", "each of which must be shaped precisely", and "handed down by successive generations of master Buddhist artists over the centuries". (With the last one, replace "Buddhist artists" with "brewers" or "bakers" and it could go straight into any number of commercials). Gordonofcartoon 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new comment on mediation page

please see mediation page discussion & also comment on this page under Talk Page Archived. David Woodward 09:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also a new comment on declarations of affiliations above Simmonstony 11:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pepper Article

I would like to ask other editors what they think about linking of the Daniel Pepper Article [1] from this story.

That the article is critical is not the point, however the article contains information that can be proved to be incorrect, if not deliberately fabricated. The main point in question here is a quote from an officer of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The officer has, in writing, refuted that the information quoted was ever given to Pepper (or anyone) by himself, and that the information is incorrect. Whilst this letter has not as yet been published, a copy can be made available or published if required.

Comments appreciated

Simmonstony 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't think a, published or unpublished, letter by an individual is sufficient reason to remove a reference (no longer an external link) to an article in a 7 times Pulitzer Prize winning "international newspaper published daily, Monday through Friday" David Woodward 09:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Then that just goes to prove that a Pulitzer Prize winning international can also print fabricated materials which is what much of the Pepper article contained. At least if this is referenced then the letter of refutation should be referenced. If it were published then would everyone be in agreement with that. I am not sure about Wikipedia Policy on referencing materials that contain disputed materials or materials that refuted. Can anyone enlighten me on that? -- Simmonstony (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tony, i can appreciate that you have a problem with this article (although i still think it is reasonably balanced, having presented the responses of Linda Gatter). I accept that you have a letter as mentioned above. The paragraph still needs a reference, given the controversy. Why don't we replace it with a different reference? Some suggestions:
http://www.projectsmonitor.com/detailnews.asp?newsid=14585
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article229215.ece
http://www.wie.org/j28/big-buddha.asp
http://www.tibet.ca/tibet/public/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=2001&m=11&p=3_1
http://www.angelfire.com/ak/ambedkar/BRpressgallery.html David Woodward (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am fine with having criticism. In fact, as it exists it should be there, however I do feel that the Pepper article is strongly biased. Pepper approached Maitreya Project, according to their press officer, Linda Gatter, for information, which was supplied. Any information given by the Maitreya Project was apparently ignored, and the figures supplied by the Land Acquisition Office in Gorakhpur were grossly inflated. This turned what could have been a good, unbiased article into a bit of a witch hunt, and I think that its easy to see this by the way its written. In any case, if others feel its OK to include that link I would not object. I was merely pointing out the flaws and that if it is referenced at least a note should be made regarding the figures being refuted from the source or at least a link to the MP response, which is there. So please go ahead and use this reference if you feel it is valuable without any objection from myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmonstony (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the below article could also be used and referenced: http://www.wildriverreview.com/airmail_india-response.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmonstony (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)