Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence/Appendix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Freedom skies' citations are suspect

Freedom skies describes the "larger martial arts community including authors, practitioners and major news institutions" rejecting "revisionist claims" and "negationism" of the Bodhidharma legend.[1]

Freedom skies cited works from "martial arts authors across the world"[2] rejecting these "revisionist claims" and "negationism," including:

[edit] Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia

More recently, Freedom skies cited[7] Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia in support of the claim "Mudras are used throughout the Buddhist and Hindu world in Asia, and not only in religious practice but also in dance, theatre, martial arts and so on. The earliest evidence of such cheironomy comes from Pharonic Egypt."

When I read this, I expressed disbelief that mudras, cheironomy and Pharaonic Egypt would come up in a book entitled Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia.[8]

Freedom skies' response was the following:[9]

The book "Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth By Richard L. Gawthrop" is described on Google Books as :-
A remarkable collection of essays written by an international team of contributors explores different aspects of religion in Japan. Subjects discussed include new religions in postwar Japan, beliefs about fox-possession in the Heian period, and the religious life of the first shogunate in the late twelfth century. The essays offer fresh insights into the rich religious traditions of Japan, many of which have been previously neglected in the English-language writing on Japan.
(source:google books).

It struck me as equally unlikely that a book with that description would have the title Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia.

Freedom skies' reply continued,

The main search reads as "Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth by Richard L. Gawthrop - History - 1996 - 341 pages"
If you'll take a look into the Places mentioned in this book you'll come across North america, Japan and Europe. However surprised some people may be, books with the word Prussia in the title can mention Japan and books like The Moor's Last Sigh can be set in Bombay, instead of the first image of the Iberian Peninsula that comes to mind.

Now, if you check, Google Books does, in fact, give that description of Pietism... as well as support Freedom skies' claim about the Egyptian origins of the mudra.

However, the copy of Pietism... available using the Search Inside function at Amazon.com does not.[10]

Why? Because the copy at Google Book Search is the internet equivalent of a misprint that includes pages from another book.

Now, that's not Freedom skies' fault, but it does mean one of two things.

  1. Freedom skies does not know enough enough about history and religion to have noticed the mismatch between title and content.
  2. Freedom skies reads his sources either very inattentively or not at all.

At least one, and possibly both, of these is true.

Freedom skies' "research" amounts to little more than plugging keywords into Google and citing whatever pops up. This is especially clear in the wikicode of earlier versions of the article[11][12] where he uses external links to Google as citations and the keywords are visible in the code of the URL.

[edit] Objections

[edit] JFD has an ethnocentric Chinese bias

RevolverOcelotX: Taijutsu (Chinese: 体術, lit. 'Body techniques' ? ) is a term for Chinese martial arts techniques that rely on body dynamics.
JFD: Taijutsu (体術, lit. 'Body techniques' ? ) is a term for martial arts techniques that rely on body dynamics.
RevolverOcelotX: Taijutsu (Chinese: 体術, lit. 'Body techniques' ? ) is a term for Chinese martial arts techniques that rely on body dynamics.
JFD: Taijutsu may be written using Chinese characters, but I've never heard this phrase (in its Chinese pronunciation or otherwise) used in the context of Chinese martial arts, only those of Japan. And the bulk of my contributions to Wikipedia have to do with Chinese martial arts so I do know what I'm talking about.
Given that "Taijutsu" is mainly used in the context of Japanese martial arts, and that this article is otherwise entirely about Japanese martial arts, a claim that Taijutsu is Chinese needs to be backed up by cited sources.

[edit] Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

"Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection" was originally written as a way to keep this off of Wikipedia.

I'll admit, it can't have worked that well because editor(s) kept adding it to Wikipedia again and again and again and again. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

[edit] NinaOdell

SebastianHelm: Freedom skies cites User:NinaOdell's apology. This is a red herring. The fact is that Freedom skies called her a liar and did not apologize, even after I suggested an apology. Nina was very frustrated and gave up her mediation.[19].

[edit] Content dispute

A response to this

It is my understanding that Arbitration is not meant for content disputes, so the Committee should feel free to completely ignore this section. Nonetheless, I think it would be valuable to provide some context and am willing to substantiate this section further upon the Committee's request.

What Freedom skies wants to say is that Zen emerged in India, and was transmitted from there to China for the most part in toto. To conclude that requires inferences which are not explicitly supported by the citations he provides. In other words, OR.

One of the citations he provides clearly challenges his view, which further supports the assertion that Freedom skies cites sources that don't support his claims.

Taoism played a central role in the reception that China gave to Buddhism. An appreciation of the close relationship between these two religions during the early years of Chinese Buddhism paves the way for understanding how the Taoist influence on Buddhism was later to culminate in the teachings of the Zen school.

– Heinrich Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History

This passage is pretty clear that the "two religions" to which Dumoulin refers are Taoism and Buddhism and that the influence of the former on the latter culminated in Zen, which completely contradicts Freedom skies' view. In the same work, Dumoulin quotes Ruth Fuller Sasaki:

Today we know quite clearly that Chinese Ch'an did not originate with an individual Indian teacher and that many of its roots lay deep in native China's thought.

– Sasaki, in Dumoulin:89

Also, Freedom skies has, on more than one occasion, made statements which reveal just how little he knows about the subject matter.

Freedom skies: The attribution of Bodhidharma's Dharma teachings and Huike are found in Long Scroll of the Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices by Talinin.

Only the preface to the Long Scroll is by Tanlin. The rest is traditionally ascribed to Bodhidharma. Freedom skies eventually makes a point of this[20] but only after I've pointed out his initial error.[21] This is an admittedly esoteric matter and mistakes by dilettantes are to be expected, but that in no way excuses Freedom skies' attempt to bluff expertise he clearly doesn't have, especially when his bluffs reveal how little he knows.

Freedom skies: Outside of Zen Buddhism, buddhist philosophies still do not find adequate followers in China and Japan.

There are many schools of Buddhism in East Asia and Pure Land Buddhism actually rivals Zen in popularity. This is not an obscure matter like the question of what section of which Zen text is attributed to whom; this is common knowledge and, with this statement, Freedom skies reveals an unacceptable level of ignorance in someone who "emphatically claims knowledge" of Buddhism. It's an error comparable to "emphatically claiming knowledge" of Western Christianity and not knowing about Protestantism.

Freedom skies is far from the expert on Buddhism he claims to be and his reasons for editing Buddhism-related articles are the same as for every other article he edits: to push his uninformed nationalist POV.

[edit] Wong Kiew Kit

Saposcat: Wong Kiew Wit—with all due respect—is probably not the best reference to use

[edit] Broughton

Standard versions of the traditional story place Bodhidharma's arrival in the Lo-yang area in 527. A guide to Lo-yang's magnificent Buddhist heritage entitled Record of the Buddhism Monasteries of Lo-yang (Lo-yang chia-lan chi), a reliable non-Buddhist source, mentions a Bodhidharma in Lo-yang at about this time. There is one difference from the traditional story. The guide's Bodhidharma is an Iranian, not an Indian. There is, however, nothing implausible about an early sixth-century Iranian Buddhist master who made his way to North China via the fabled Silk Road. This scenario is, in fact, more likely than a South Indian master who made his way by the sea route.

In the early sixth century Lo-yang, east of the great bend in the Yellow River, was an international Buddhist city, the eastern terminus of the Silk Road. It was the capital of the Northern Wei Dynasty (386–532), a non-Chinese conquering people originally from the steppe. Lo-yang was in continuous contact with the cultural products of the Western Region: unusual goods of all kinds, military technology, art, Buddhism. The city overflowed with Buddhist temples and monasteries, over a thousand of them. There were many exotic Buddhist masters from the Western Region.

But by 547 the Northern Wei had fallen, and Lo-yang's walls lay in ruins, its palaces, temples, and monasteries burned down. It was then that Yang Hsüan-chih, who held a number of modest official posts, revisited the city and compiled the Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Lo-yang in order to show the former preeminent glory of the capital's Buddhist establishments. He was not really interested in the masters and teachings of Buddhism, only in fabulous sites and entertaining stories. He had no ax to grind when describing Buddhist masters.

Of course, Yang may have been referring to another Bodhidharma. His record mentions a Bodhidharma twice in passing. This minor player's role is erely to illustrate that even a Westerner could be astonished by the imposing stupas and monasteries of metropolitan Lo-yang. Yang's Bodhidharma did contribute one element to the Bodhidharma story that stuck—the age of 150

Am I guilty of withholding pertinent information as Freedom skies alleges?

Does not mentioning "another Bodhidharma" distort the meaning of the text? Or is "another Bodhidharma" merely an off-the-cuff speculation by Broughton?

Note also that Broughton expresses the likelihood of an Iranian rather than Indian Bodhidharma in much stronger language than "another Bodhidharma" yet this information Freedom skies chooses to withhold.