WikiProject Buddhism		BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Buddhism portal v • d • e 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 Buddhism by country, 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 project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 January 2005 - July 2009

Contents 1 Intro Changes 1.1 Third opinion on "irreligious" 2 Why was this topic archived?

[edit] Intro Changes

I removed the line from the intro about 'most Asian ethnic groups being irreligious' and Buddhism not being a religion by "Western standards". There were a two major problems with it: first, the cited articles were about Asian-American ethnicities, not Asians in their country of origin. Second, the idea that there is a single 'Western standard' by which it is decided if someone is religious or if their practices constitute a religion is fallacious. It might be worth noting with citation that some observers don't call Buddhism a religion, but we shouldn't be presenting that as if it is a standard majority view. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this change because there is another, as yet unresolved, discussion currently taking place on Wikipedia Buddhism on this disputed topic, which Clay Collier is contributing to. It would be unfair at this point to bring that same dispute here until there is a clear, citeable, general agreement reached. We should try to ensure that Wikipedia articles are consistent.UkFaith (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of 'is Buddhism a religion': how is it acceptable to use sources that say something about three ethnic groups in America to support a statement about 'the majority' of ethnic groups in East Asia? At the very least, the statement needs to be completely rewritten based on that alone. That was actually my main reason for deleting the phrase, not the 'is it a religion' issue, which I see as being somewhat orthogonal to counting Buddhists in a country- it's possible to count people who self-identify as Buddhist without needing to know what that designation means to them, and in fact nearly impossible to do any other way. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I had nothing to do with this introduction.

Without reading the five cited reports that support this line I am unable to confirm the authors intentions. Have you read the reports yourself?

When I first read the line I thought it was refering to East Asian ethnic groups in the west and how "Western standards of religion" dont apply to their practices.

I think we both agree that this page needs a lot of work and I hope you will also agree I have already put effort into improving the quality of this page.

I just dont think we need to have the exact same dispute here as well as on Buddhism talk page at the same time, especially with so much else wrong with the page. No offence by the way.UkFaith (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's nothing personal- I know you had nothing to do with the intro. I did read the linked reports- they are specifically about the characteristics of Korean-American, Chinese-American, and Japanese-American people in the US, but the statement in the article is about East Asian ethnic groups generally. They don't give any explanation of what 'Western standard' is being applied to call them irreligious. If this was doing using the sort of large-scale surveying that is often used in these things, then that conclusion is likely based on something like regular church attendance or how often a respondent says they pray daily/weekly etc. Immigrant Buddhists will tend to be reported as not particularly religiously active on such surveys because they may live in an area without access to a temple, because weekly temple attendance does not have the same cultural role in Buddhist cultures that it does in Western Christendom, or because they do not consider their ritual activities to be prayer. Whatever the case, the statement as it stands now seems to be painting all of East Asia as irreligious on the basis of the practices of three ethnic groups living outside of East Asia. Drawing a conclusion about all Asian Americans on the basis of a report about three subgroups would violate WP:SYN; drawing a conclusion about Asians outside the US from the same basis is just sloppy. That's why I would like to see that statement removed. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated that I agree there is a lot wrong with this page, including the intro. It was me that raised these issues at this time. I think we need to agree on the exact nature of the figures contained on this page and then adjust the intro accordingly to be accurate.

Just for the record I think the above post contained a number of opinions since no citations were mentioned.

I personally would not have phrased the line as the author has nor possibly would I have chosen the references you mention however I think there is a valid point made by the author after using the phrase "mix of religious ideas" that there are differences in the definitions of the term "religion" in the west from that of the east and that there are differences in the way these cultural areas are approached in the east from that of the west. The author is trying to help the reader understand the difficulting in gathering world estimates because of these reasons and the inherent problems with their accuracey and reliablility, A point well made but other scholars. There are seven other citations that contribute to this point as a whole so your point regarding the WP:SYN is not valid.

Ignoring these important points has led to some of the wildly incorrect estimates in the main table which we all agree need addressing. Once we have an agreed referenced table of estimates the intro should be a formality.UkFaith (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was speculating above about why the authors of the study reached the conclusion they did about Asian-Americans. That is really not relevant to my central point. Can you draw a conclusion about the behavior of most ethnic groups in Asia based on a report about three ethnic groups in America? The answer is obviously no. That is all I am trying to fix at this particular moment. What other information is needed to know we need to correct that conclusion? I've made a proposed fix to the article that leaves the issue of 'is Buddhism a religion' intact. The other part must go. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I think you are wrong and have missed the point. I have already stated there are a further SEVEN citations in support of this text which also need to be taken into account, and which you make no mention of. I have not read through them myself as yet.

The citations you are querying have good and bad points. I can see that the author tried to make his comparison in the west because to some that may seem logical.

The actual points themselves surely are vital and fundamental to the article in explaining how the information is gathered and what it actually represents. You also make no mention of this in the context of this article either.

You can see for yourself from this Wikipedia article on irreligion that the authors view is supported as it is in this article on reference.com/irreligion and again in this article from allexperts/irreligion.

It is vital that an explanation as to the nature of these estimates and what they actually represent is given with in this article in some way.

For the above reason I have reverted this article until agreement is reached. No offence.UkFaith (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the three articles that are in the sentence that I deleted is the only references that address the idea of irreligion. These reports are about the practices of Asian-Americans in three specific ethnic groups. The sentence is about most East Asian ethnic groups. You can not make claims about behavior in Asia on the basis of behavior in the US. You can not make a conclusion about 'most' ethnic groups on the basis of one ethnic group- there are dozens of ethnic groups in China alone. You say that you have not read the linked sources; I have. In fact, of the three linked reports, only the one on Chinese-Americans says that they could be considered irreligious; the section on Korean-Americans actually talks about the importance of religion in their history. In all the sources taken together, we have a few statements about how Chinese religion may be hard to classify according to a Western rubric, and one that says that Chinese-Americas could be considered irreligious. Yes, the article needs to make clear that Asia religions sometimes are not readily classifiable as religion according to Western standards. This statement in the article does not do that, and it is also completely misusing sources to draw an unsupported conclusion. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I looked at all the sources linked in the intro, not just the 3 reports I've mentioned. None of them provide a basis for concluding that 'most East Asian ethnic groups' could be considered irreligious. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut to the chase. You dont appear to have read most of what I have said and have not responded to any of the issues I raised.

I think you have your own personal view that "Buddhism is a religion" and that all articles must state that as a primary view and thats what is really motivating you at the moment.

I feel like I have wasted my time believing we were actually having a discussion. Thats honestly how I feel.UkFaith (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And for the record...the author is NOT basing his 'conclusions' on the THREE citations as you put it....the points that are made are well documented points in many articles. Why do you keep ignoring that point???? The author of this article just happend to have used those citations to support an already establish point NOT the other way round. I agree they are maybe not the best available citations.UkFaith (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(Indent reset) I'm quite frustrated by this discussion as well. I'm not arguing the article shouldn't mention the view that Buddhism is not a religion. What I want to know is this: what are these sources that say most East Asian ethnic groups are irreligious? Where is this point established? Here are the references in the first paragraph, in order:

1. [1] discusses the problems and utility of discussing Chinese religion in terms of its 3 well-known religious traditions. Nothing implying that the Chinese are not religious, and deals with only one ethnicity.
2. [2] Discusses multiple religious belonging in China. Again, only deals with China, and does not contain any claims regarding the non-religiousness of any ethnic group.
3. [3] 'Generally speaking, Chinese people do not have a strong religious inclination but despite this the three main faiths have had a considerable following.' Discusses Chinese attitudes towards religion- doesn't directly call the Chinese non-religious, but does provide examples of how Chinese religiosity might be different from Western views of the topic.
4. [4] Discusses differences in Chinese expressions of religion vs. those familiar in the West.
5. [5] Just discusses the interaction between the three Chinese 'Great Traditions'.
6. [6] Appears to be a commercial link that should be removed.
7. [7] Broken link
8. [8] Report on Chinese-Americans. The first half of the sentence I am proposing to reform is a modification of a line in this text. It does say that Chinese-Americans might be considered irreligious by Western standards. Is specifically discussing the Chinise diaspora in the US, not people in East Asia.
9. [9] Report on Korean-Americans. Does not call them irreligious, does not discuss Koreans outside the US in this context.
10. [10] Japanese-Americans. Does not call them irreligious, does not discuss non-American Japanese.

The next three references are discussing the view that Buddhism is not a religion. I have no problem including that here. The problem is: there is only one ethnic group called irreligious in the source material. Chinese-Americans. Other ethnicities in East Asia are not discussed at all, and only two emigrant communities are discussed- neither of which are called irreligious. The language for the statement in the article is taken directly from the Chinese-American article, and then broadened in a way that the sources don't support. Where is any ethnic group other than Chinese-Americans discussed as being irreligious by Western standards? The language of the statement in the article is way too broad, and isn't what the sources are saying. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ok I tried to remove some of my statements before you responded. I did but not before you had seen the page. I did not feel some of my statements were entirely in context.

I actually agree with the author in that what the west refers to as religion is not what is practiced in the east.

I honestly think that the misuse of the word religion is in this context is an obstacle rather than helping people understand and appreciate eastern beliefs and practices.

As I said earlier...after stating "Mix of religious ideas" it seems fair to clarify what is meant by religious in the east and that it differs by western standards of religion. Did you see the three citations I added?.UkFaith (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this? Site the survey data from the religion article as the source. Delete the spurious references to the Asian-American data. Rephrase it as: "According to survey data, the majority of the population of East Asia could be considered irreligious by Western standards, but this attitude is not necessarily incompatible with participation in Buddhist religious practices." Separate sentence, with the current references: "Some practitioners of Buddhism claim that Buddhism should not be considered a religion. Such claims are not unique to Buddhists, and scholars generally continue to consider Buddhism alongside other religious traditions (source from the material on Peter Jackson's source page (User:Peter_jackson#Religion), and I have an additional source from a book by Richard Gombrich that deals with the classification of Buddhism. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why you are so incredibly hung up about refering to Buddhism as a "religion" at every point....even by western standards, and continuallly make that the focal point of any discussion.

Other points are being made here and the purpose of the paragraph is to put some contextual meaning to these estimates by further describing eastern practices.UkFaith (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not insisting on calling Buddhism a religion. I am trying to fix a misused source. I am insisting on having explicit sources for statements, and reflecting that some people consider Buddhism a religion and some do not, but there is no single consensus on which is the case. Again, I am more concerned about revising the statement about 'most East Asian ethnic groups'- which we lack usable sources for- so that it fits the sources. I don't care if we call Buddhism a bucket of French fries covered in gravy as long as we have sources for it and reflect the diversity of opinions in the wider literature. Is there anything in the proposed language that you actually take issue with on a factual basis? There are sources for all of them. Nowhere does it say that calling Buddhism a religion is the only, or the correct, view. It states that it is usually considered alongside other religious traditions by scholars. Do you see any reason to believe that to be false? You seem absolutely committed to the current language. There are two basic, factual problems with the current language. 1) It confuses number of ethnicities with number of people. We have sources talking about number of people. We do not have sources talking about number of ethnicities. The footnote that purports to be the source for the statement does not contain the information in question, and 2) the current language states 'according to Western standards Buddhism is not a religion' as an uncontroversial fact, when in fact this is a subjective decision and no single 'Western standard' of what is a religion exists. We have some sources calling Buddhism a religion. We have some sources saying Buddhism is not a religion. Why should we not include both? What I want the article to reflect is 1) accurate information about the demographics, sourced with correct sources that actually contain the information we are reproducing, and 2) that the issue of Buddhism being a religion is more complex than a yes/no question. I am not the one who made Buddhism as a religion the focal point of this discussion. I wanted to avoid that entirely. I left the statement about Buddhism not being a religion intact in one of my proposed versions qualifying it very, very slightly to make it clear it was not a unanimous view. The current version grossly misuses a source in the intro; it plagiarizes wording from a report about Asian-Americans and uses that as a footnote to make a claim about all East Asian ethnic groups. That is a flatly wrong use of a source. Citations appear in text and appear close to the fact they are referencing for a reason. What objection do you have to changing the first half of that sentence to accurately reflect the data that we have? Secondly, I know you don't think Buddhism is a religion. But there are a lot of views on the subject. All that I am insisting on is that we not pick one side and claim that it is the only correct view. The current version is over-simplistic in its categorization. I want to include the claim that Buddhism is a religion. I also want to include the claim that Buddhism is not a religion. I also want to provide context for those claims- that Buddhists are not unique in saying that their beliefs are not a religion (here's one that says that same thing about Hinduism, which I have also heard called a 'way of life' or a culture; likewise, some argue that Judaism is an ethnicity or a cultural context rather than a religion in the ordinary sense. Kant took this view. Taoism has been called a philosophy rather than a religion. Confucianism has been called both. Islam has been called a political ideology, or again a 'way of life'). At the same time, Buddhism is generally studied alongside other world religious traditions. None of these things mean that Buddhism is a religion, nor do I want to use them to argue that. I simply want to provide a complete context for readers as to how Buddhism is regarded from inside and outside the tradition. And more importantly, I want to get the mis-sourced statement about East Asian ethnic groups corrected. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but your but your current arguments are getting further and further away from the actual topic.

As far as I can tell you were involved with the writing of the heading for the Buddhism article which is completely uncited which does not seem to bother any of you. There for I do not accept that your goal here is to have this article correctly associated and supported by its citations.

It seems to me that you will say anything to get what you want.

What is the PURPOSE of the entire paragraph in question?????????????????

And for the record....it actually says..."could be characterized as irreligious".

So why dont I just add the three citations I found which do support the wording????????????

But of course thats not really what you want.UkFaith (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I am trying to focus on a single specific sentence in this article to keep the discussion focused and concrete. Your solution of adding the sources you found is essentially what I proposed above, except that I suggested that 'majority of East Asian ethnicities' should be changed to 'majority of the population' in order to make the statement in the article comply with what the actual sources say. Do you understand the distinction between 'majority of the population' and 'majority of ethnic groups'? The majority of the POPULATION of East Asia is concentrated in a small umber of ethnic groups relative to the number of ethnic groups in East Asia. The sources you provided are about population. I am entirely content to have the article state that the majority of the population can be considered irreligious. 'Majority of ethnic groups' is asserting a fact that is materially different from what the sources state. THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE I AM PROPOSING RIGHT NOW. Get rid of the spurious Asian-American articles. Use your sources. Change the sentence from ethnic groups to population. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ok have changed the text and citations according to your points. I really think that it is the table that needs the work though and as I have already said once the table is corrected the lead will need to be rewritten accurately according to the definition of "Buddhist" and estimates used in the article.UkFaith (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you- that is an improvement over what we had before. In your version though we've lost the idea of Buddhism not being a religion, which is what the last two sources are talking about specifically- they're not talking about irreligion. I've reworded things slightly. Also, the references for the 'irreligious' sentence- we should use the survey data in the Wikipedia irreligion article rather than the Wikipedia article itself as the source, since WP is not supposed to use itself as a source. We can wikilink to irreligion to keep some connection to that article. One of the other references is a copy and paste of the Wikipedia article (reference.com mirrors Wikipedia content), so that one can be removed. I'll give you a chance to look over the rewording I made before making those changes. --Clay Collier (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording at the moment seems fine and conforms to your points. If you wish to make further changes can you please supply citations to support those changes. You have maintained through out these posts that above all...text should be supported by citations And you said that in the above post the ONLY problem you had was with the term East Asian ethnic groups and the corresponding citations.UkFaith (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not change the meaning of the sentence. I broke up a run-on sentence into two manageable ones. The citations are again not saying what they purport to verify; the citations are two article arguing Buddhism is something other than a religion. I think you are conflating the 'irreligious' idea with Buddhism not being believed to be a religion, but these are two distinct ideas. The survey data that is sited in the source material is defining 'irreligious' as those to whom religion is unimportant, or who claim to not have a religion. You were very explicit earlier that you wanted to preserve the idea of Buddhism not being a religion in the article; my edit made that point more clear than the version that you reverted to. Why are you now objecting to explicitly including the idea that some people do not think Buddhism is a religion? --Clay Collier (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The term Irreligious also means NOT religious which is fully supported by the two citations that state Buddhism is not a religion. I actually changed that part from "not a religion" because I thought you would agree with it this way being less biased.UkFaith (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the issue. The source for being able to say that East Asians are irreligious is a survey of attitudes toward religion in Asia. That is what the Wikipedia article is written using. The specific questions asked in that survey were whether or not someone 1) did not have a religion, or 2) did not think religion was important. Now, it could be that some people who reported not having a religion are Buddhists who don't think Buddhism is a religion. But we have no way of knowing that, because we have no information on who exactly it is that does not think Buddhism is a religion; we have the two opinions in the sources that are linked, but they represent the views of those two authors, and do not make any claims about how widespread this view is. It appears to me that the chain of reasoning you are following is: 1) Lots of East Asians are irreligious. 2) Irreligious means not having a religion. 3) Buddhism is not a religion. 4) Irreligious East Asians are Buddhist. 5) The statement 'Buddhism is not a religion' and 'Buddhists are irreligious' is equivalent. But there are a couple problems here; one, 'Buddhism is not a religion' is an opinion, not a fact. I've linked the sources above (on Peter Jackson's user page) that describe that, or you could look at other encyclopedia introductions, the religious demographics information published by governments and almanacs, etc. to verify that 'Buddhism is not a religion' is not the only view on this topic. Second, while irreligious can mean not having a religion (according to the dictionary definition), some of the people being identified in these surveys as irreligious are not people without a religion, they are people who have one but don't think it important. As I mentioned above, there might be people who are Buddhists who do not think Buddhism is a religion in that category, but there is no way to know. We can not assume that once someone is classified as 'irreligious', we can apply any and all of the definitions of that word to them. A very specific definition is being used in the survey material that informs the articles that are reporting statistics on irreligion. Bottom line is, we have sources that say unambigiously that the population of East Asia (or at least China and Japan) are majority irreligious, and sources that say unambiguously that the opinion of the authors is that Buddhism is not a religion. Why not just report exactly what they say rather than try and wrangle out whether or not they support some related but distinct conclusion? As to the wording, "Adherents of Eastern religions such as Buddhism with local Animism, Chinese folk religion, Confucianism, Shamanism, Shinto, and Taoism often have beliefs composed of a mix of religious ideas" is a confusing phrase (are all of these Eastern religions, or is just Buddhism mixed with everything an example of an Eastern religion?), and the sentence joins puts two distinct ideas into one sentence- having a mixture of religious views, and having none or being indifferent towards them. --Clay Collier (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you are desperate to say that "Buddhism is mostly considered a religion but 'some' dont see it as one", but this is not the page for such discussions. As you know such a discussion is currently taking place on Wikipedia Buddhism article, where it belongs.

The text here says "could be considered irreligious"...and it could be...in fact thats exactly how some people do see it...so the statement is true.UkFaith (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the run-on sentence while leaving your wording and use of sources about the 'irreligion' issue intact. I still don't believe that the sources are being used correctly, but the two of us can clearly not settle that issue. I'll ask for a 3rd opinion about this issue and we can see what someone else thinks. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your change because you put the text out of context.

Do you mean you will get one of your buddies to back you up?

Is that how things work on here...

Should I get a fourth?UkFaith (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have also reverted your uncited changes.UkFaith (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're obviously just reverting any edit that I've made without looking at whether it accords with the sources or improves the article. This is just a grammar correction; this is fully referenced from the linked report and corrected poor language; this corrected the incorrect tense in the original sentence and correctly noted that the source was talking about China, not all Buddhists. I've rolled back your reverts, because there is really no justification for them. How can splitting one run-on sentence into two sentences 'put the text out of context'? As I said, I've asked for a third opinion from an uninvolved editor to provide some additional input. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes once again since they are your own opinions and not cited.

You seem to wish to edit the article anyway you wish to your own wording that suits you with out taking into account the perpose of the article.

This is not the place for an argument as to how to qualify Buddhism from a western view point, nor which side carries a majority. The sentence is merely intended to clarify Eastern practices and traditions and the difficulties in estimating world Buddhist population.

You can call as many of your buddies as you like. I've seen the way you operate here and on other article.

As for the second sentence it was taken out of context by splitting the sentence into two and making it two seperate points which is not how it was intended. The author makes a single point.UkFaith (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons why I reverted your changes above.UkFaith (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Where are 'my opinions' in edits like this? You say 'the author' was making a single point- what author are you talking about? The authors of the sources? The author who edited the introduction before we started? The sentence that was there before we started editing related the concept of irreligion to Buddhism not being a religion. Now the sentence that you want to keep discusses Asians following a mixture of religious practices and being irreligious in the same sentence. The sentence is not grammatically correct in the form you propose to keep, and connects two loosely related concepts without any transition. How is this out of context? Following the practices of multiple religions and being disinterested in religion, or not personally identifying as religious are pretty clearly two separate situations, no? --Clay Collier (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You have tried to edit this page in the way that you wish claiming about four or five different reasons, but always the same change. You set out from the begining with a single goal. Mostly you have ignored all the points raised and have continued to push in the direction of your own goal. Its a complete waste of my time putting forward any more argumets since you are not interested in anything I say. UkFaith (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please focus on the actual edits? Every time I try to ask you a specific question about an edit, you reply with these vague accusations about my insidious agenda. What is this 'single goal' that I have? At one point you claimed that I was trying to get rid of the view that Buddhism was not a religion, but when I tried to restore that wording, you then accused me of something different. And again: how is this a bad edit? I found the original source from a broken link, corrected the grammar, added facts taken directly from the presentation that gave an impression of the ways in which religious practice in China is difficult to classify. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you a Buddhist?UkFaith (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: I do not wish to get into personal discussions. I want to talk about concrete improvements to the article. --Clay Collier (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You have ignored almost everything I have said so dont come that!UkFaith (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have disagreed with you. I may have at some points misunderstood the point you were trying to make. I do not believe that I have ignored your opinions. There are edits that I have made that you have removed that I do not feel at all match up with the reasons you gave for removing them, such as the several I linked above. I would appreciate if you could explain why you think such changes- which I think are improvements to the article that did not change that factual content- should be removed. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If your changes dont change the factual content then theres no big deal is there. Also since your edits are never accompanied by any citations could you please discuss the issues here to save keep messing the main article about. Thankyou.UkFaith (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been citations in the text for all the edits I made. There are plenty of reasons why an edit might not change the information represented but still improve the article. In the example I linked above, the text was almost unreadable in places and incorrectly identified the name of the source of the information, for instance. Splitting the sentence in the introduction does not change the factual content, but makes a single run on sentence into two more readable, grammatically correct sentences. This edit added a fact that was already in the cited source (that the estimates had not been updated in years), moved the sentence to be in a paragraph discussing the same topic, and changes the incorrect use of the past tense. How can I provide a citation for that beyond what is already there? Or this, which just changed two words to make them closer to standard English. In a couple of cases I have changed words because the text was copying language from the article without quoting, which is plagiarism. Improving grammar, spelling, and word choice is part of the editing process that Wikipedia articles are supposed to go through. How is a reader supposed to divine what is meant by sentences like: "All this contradictory data gives an idea that it will be the own evolution in the opening in the Chinese society the one that will be polishing these numbers"?? --Clay Collier (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Its untrue to say ALL your edits have been cited and you know it.

As for the line that you gave as an example....how about changing that line only instead of making "tweaks" all over the place which bend the article to your way of thinking.

That single line, I guess, was a mix of edits and probably originally tried to say that in time with China being more open estimates are likely to get better...feel free to make the correct word choice though ...and the correct grammer, ..syntax, ..spelling, etc and check that there can be no allegation of plagiarism. Gosh its so refereshing to see someone so diligent.UkFaith (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What changes have I made that have not been cited? And how was the rest of that edit that that line was a part of innappropriate? You should not be reverting my entire contribution because you object to a part of it- that is part of what Wikipedia:Reverting spells out. You are reverting things that have nothing to do with the content that you are disputing. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be better to have an honest conversation instead of trying to play me?

You are never going to 'win' so long as you keep looking to 'beat me' on a technicality to get what you want.

Why don't you give up and try approaching this subject honestly?UkFaith (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way I note that you had no interest in changing the last line of text of the intro when it did not involve 'tweaking' the article in other areas!! UkFaith (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you getting your buddies to vandalise the article!...What next?UkFaith (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is totally useless. Write whatever you want. --Clay Collier (talk)

23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I guessed you would turn down my offer to have an honest conversation.

And you still have no interest in correcting the last sentence despite making a big deal of it!!! UkFaith (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The line I took away verges on racism. Why in the world should this nonsense be in the article. "Irreligious"? How can people practicing a religion be irreligious? And this thing about "from a Western point of view". Maybe you mean your point of view. This article is one of the worst written I have seen on Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that the line I took out is taken out and unless you can offer a convincing argument, I will attempt once again to remove it, as I believe it is offensive and meant to be that way.--TheRealKing2 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, all the "refernces" to this statement are simply articles on "irreligion" being either Wikipedia itself or sources that leech off of Wikipedia. There is not a single real source for the statement. I therefor will take it out once again. When you reverted my last edit, you did it without engaging in a single bit of conversation first. If you want to change my edit, engage in some discussion first please. Thank you.--TheRealKing2 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion on "irreligious"

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

the disputed text

...although according to the Western standards of religion much of East Asia could be characterized as irreligious <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion Wikipedia - irreligion]</ref> <ref>[http://www.reference.com/browse/Irreligion?jss=0 reference.com - irreligion]</ref> <ref>[http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/ir/irreligion.htm allexperts - irreligion]</ref> including Buddhists <ref>[http://www.amtb.org.tw/e-bud/releases/educati.htm Buddhism is an Education, Not a Religion]</ref> <ref>[http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm Buddha Net]</ref>

Such a statement (poorly sourced at that) might have been widely perceived in the United States as true in the 1950s. It does not belong in the article. — Athaenara ✉ 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this topic archived?

Why was "1.5 billion estimated Buddhists wild and unsubstantiated." archived? The last comment made was on the 31st of October. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 10:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the wiki editors / admins. were tired of your same old biased arguments using every logical fallacy in the book. It was just getting too old and you were repeating the same unsubstantiated claims with no basis other than your own agenda. I had nothing to do with it and just found out about it being archived. Good decision, admins. thank you. Theravada1 (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)