Talk:Padmaloka Buddhist Retreat Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 Padmaloka Buddhist Retreat Centre, 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism sections

CruiseControl108 wrote on article History page at 08:58, 27 May 2008: 'The Further Criticisms section has now been removed as is largely a critique of the FWBO which is covered in depth on the wikipedia FWBO page to which links are made from the Padmaloka page.'

It is true that the Further Criticisms section partly refers to criticisms of the FWBO which are also covered in the main wikipedia article on the FWBO, but it also contains critical material relevant to Padmaloka, from the magazine Tricycle, which is not available in the wikipedia article on the FWBO. It also contains the only material from third-party sources. The rest of the Padmaloka article seems to be from FWBO sources (ie. first party sources), with the possible exception of the material from the Network of Buddhist Organisations (NBO). However, the FWBO is a member of the NBO, and FWBO member Dhammarati is one of the signatories of the statement from the NBO refered to in the Padmaloka article, so it is not clear that the statement from the NBO is genuinely a third-party source.

Wikipedia guidelines are that articles should be based on ' reliable, third-party published sources' and be written from a neutral point of view:

'Reliable sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' [1]

'All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' [2]

So I will reinstate the Further Criticisms section. Also, the present Criticism section would more accurately be titled 'FWBO's Responses to Criticism' since three out of the four links in this section are to FWBO sites, and the fourth is to the NBO statement. It would also be useful to give more background to the NBO statement. I shall re-title the present Criticism section as above, and also re-title the Further Criticisms section to just 'Criticism'. EmmDee (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)