Talk:Zen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Former good article nomineeZen was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

Recent edits

@62.145.192.97: your recent edits diff diff are not an improvement, on the contrary.

  • WP:LEAD summarizes the article; not the case here;
  • "Meditation" is a common translation of zazen;
  • Your statement "there are numerous striking disclaimers against the practice of meditation throughout the texts" is unverifiable, since the Bielefeldt-reference lacks pagenumbers. I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;
  • You cut the sentence

The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.[1]

References

  1. ^ Schlütter 2008, p. 169.
into two, moving part of it downward and changing it into "One of the most prominent examples of meditation in buddhism is Zazen", which is noninformative, and contrary your statement that "meditation" may not be a correct translation.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wp lead:
WP:lead
"It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on"
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"
both of which i accounted for while writing.
meditation might be a common translation, but meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation
bielefeldt page is hypocrisy since a lot of sources don't. So either fix your article or just don't be an ass and ask me to add a page number instead of this biased bullshit.
I moved it because obviously not evey form of zen considers zazen central and it's misleading and biased.
to wholly equate sitting meditation with zazen is a very basic mistake. as if it's the only form of sitting meditation.
Dhyana meaning meditation is also contested.
g meditation is also conteste
Your last sentence is nonsense. Of course it informs people in the context of what the available practices are, and the text references other wiki pages.
Besides that, it's not the same to say that they call zazen meditation and to falsely equate meditation to zazen.
Buddhism has theravada, but to say theravada is all of buddhism is obviously nonsense.
You dont seem to have the competence or integrity for this conversation or to edit this page.
Is there someone else who isn't an ass i can talk to?
They should remove you.
I mean...
"I know what you're pointing at, but that issue needs a lot more than a non-contextual statement in a rambling argument;"
Looking at just this page and some others you apparently also manage we can see you do this a lot more egregiously with a lot more tenuous information
95.96.74.188 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Signed by Editor[reply]
There are a few issues with the content you've added. The first issue is with the sentence These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically. The lede summarizes the article's body, and the article makes no mention of this. I have a copy of The Zen Schools of Japan and the pages cited don't appear to verify the information claimed; page 66 for example discusses Dōgen's views on sects, 70-73 is about his views on the Rinzai school and discusses the Shōbōgenzō, and pages 167-178 are a snippet of Musō's views. None of those pages seem to suggest a contestation of the Zen emphasizes... sentence that precedes the sentence added. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph on one of those pages that you're referring to? While it may warrant explanation or contextualization in some way in the article itself if properly sourced, the lede is a summary of the article not a place to emphasize otherwise unmentioned information.
The sentence after that one is There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way which doesn't appear to be relevant; this article isn't History of Buddhism and that sentence doesn't appear to be specifically pertaining to Zen. The sentence that starts with When we consider... also has a few issues, first that "we" is to be avoided per MOS:WE. But the primary issue is that the conclusion of the sentence doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, making it WP:OR. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus here on the talk page for the material before trying to reinsert it, because there appear to be valid concerns with what's being added. - Aoidh (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you call it zen buddhism but want to say what buddha thought wasnt relevant in zen?
yeah ok, i see
not just biased but stupid as hell
keep your garbage article
i dont have time or patience for this nonsense
fucking morons 95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims. articles who are coincidentally moderated by the same people..
you decide what that means
this place is a joke 62.145.194.183 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but if there's a genuine bias in the article the way forward is to explain how/where the sources support the information and work together towards finding a solution to the issue of bias. Commentary like you've been making is not going to solve any bias in the article and does no one any good. I'm more than happy to discuss the issue, so long as it can be done in a respectful and collaborative way. - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding for those not familiar, the page numbers are pulled from other articles that make similar claims, I don't know what other articles or claims you're referring to, but I have read each of those pages and none of them verify that sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, because you're either ignoring it (subconsciously) or lying to me about what other articles say.
i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation
you don't go saying mahayana is central to buddhism, so why is zazen central to zen, when it also was a later invention?
if you're just going to ignore concerns like that and ignore how the same kind of thinking/bias affects the article, then we really don't have anything to talk about, because at that point there is just no reasonable basis for conversation.
same goes for the claim that buddhism can't be relevant in the article, when you freely call it "zen buddhism" and "mahayana" all throughout 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out. if the edits aren't relevent then that sounds more like an internal issue.. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With if you're not even familiar with the other uses then idk what to say but bias, there is no way someone would reasonably know where you copied that citation from unless you state where you pulled it from, but the end result is still the same; those pages do not verify the information. I don't have to know where you copied the citation from, I have access to the book itself. It's not a bias to point out that the sources do not verify the sentence. i shouldn't have to need to quote 5 sources and backup my edit with a thesis for something that is clearly at the very least misinformation no one's asking for that, but you do need to verify the claims you make, because while it may look clear to you, it's not reflected in the sources. Per WP:V: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The sentence with the failed verification and the conclusion in that last sentence do not have inline citations directly supporting the material. Finally, about a large part of the info was basically synthesized from other pages i was checking out I would encourage you to read WP:SYNTH to see why doing that is an issue in terms of adding content to an article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im familiar with the issues
that doesn't mean you can't have what is basically considered valid info (because it's not removed) and use the same sources. you probably just don't understand the angle/argument
seems to happen here a lot.. even with extremely basic obvious things
i can point you to the articles and do all your work for you, but, for as much as you like to ask for "civility", you haven't exactly been friendly.
for me it jus brings into question your familiarity.
like i'm just supposed to believe are because you say so. as if that's an argument.
like joshua claiming familiarity with the scholarly discussions while ignoring or missing very basic mistakes like "central to zen is zazen" or "... meditation"
so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic. which obviously also brings into question your ability to check the referenced sources and the edits made. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so far you don't even seem to be familiar with the basics of the topic the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that even though I am no stranger to this subject matter, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what I know, and it doesn't matter what you know. We can't add content to an article based solely on what we know. What matters when adding content is that it can be verified, can be shown via a reliable source. Someone who's never heard about Zen before should be able to look at the sentence(s) added to the article, look up the source that it's cited from, and see that it's verified there. When you cite page 66 of The Zen Schools of Japan anyone should be able to go to that page and see that it verifies the statement it's attached to. What you added does not do that, and that's the problem with the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, that's reaching and goalpost moving.
it also brings into question the info in the other pages and again your ability to manage those
it also ignores the fact that dumoulin gets treated as a valid source multiple times in the article and then is considered outdated when i use it as well. but the fact that the article isn't then immediately updated to reflect this so called oversight makes me question your sincerity here, or if you're even as interested in the topic/page and it's representation as you say you are.
because to me it looks like you only consider sources and arguments valid when it suits you, and that's bias, intended or not.
and again, if the page numbers are such a big deal, then i should've seen those in the other articles to, but it isn't consistent.
and if some of the pages invalidate the arguments i made, then that should carry over to the other pages you mention as well, and you probably have some editing to do, if you care as much as you claim you do here.
right now one of the main complaints being used is the lack of page number.
if i counted right there are about 69 references without pages in this article alone. (as of sept 7)
meaning (a large part of) the article is basically WP:OR at this point, pushed by people who are clearly invested in only their side of the conversation, seeing as it is only selectively enforced and accounted for.
same goes for using dumoulin to support your views, but calling it outdated when i mention the same book.
if you're serious about the concerns you're raising why haven't people been held to these same standards for the past 12 years or so, maybe even before that?
I think the long time editors of this and other relevant pages should be seriously scrutinized.
also see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
because as much as i like to think you are you don't seem familiar
some (more) issues with article:
intro has only one source
dhyana in intro only one source
dumoulin is used twice in the third paragraph
that means the claims there have only 1 source per claim too..
you could've removed those references to dumoulin when you said dumoulin wasn't relevant anymore/is outdated?
small attribute to taoist influence only one source
3 sources without page number in my edit are referenced without page number in this or other articles too
zazen being central to zen has only one source too, or that dhyana means meditation.
zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.
so that means there isn't a neutral point of view being presented in the article
the lead doesn't fully address the controversies surrounding the topic and debates, again no neutral point of view
and this is just from the few things i've seen trying to edit
i haven't even gotten to checking all your sources or every header yet, making me wonder how much more issues this article has.
i'm suspectig WP:COI
i'd edit it all myself but you clearly don't think I'm welcome here, so I'm leaving a tag (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems) in case someone who is interested in the concerns i raised and wants to edit them.
"Wikipedia values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement."
it's like you don't even pretend to care
blocking me for 30 days because you couldn't reasonably address the conversation doesn't convince me of your sincerity or lack of bias btw
on the contrary
and the issues you said you cared about before, well, it's been over a month and nobody has even attempted to correct it or do anything with it.
95.96.74.188 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you feel murderous here, but please watch your language. Profanity is not permitted in Wikipedia even if it is pulp fiction. The purpose of Wikipedia is to stimulate abstract thinking, not to inform or teach. 2603:8081:3A00:B881:59EC:40A:5AA5:8168 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
go back to 4 chan you troll 62.145.199.82 (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, mind your manners! That's poor net etiquette. We can block you indefinitely for this, so read the Wikipedia Code of Conduct. Unitarian9999 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted my removal of this rant; I'll try, again, to adress the issues, though Aoidh already did an excellent job. The IP's problem seems to be with the statement that dhyana ("meditation") is central to Zen. In this edit diff, which they think better fit[s] academic consesus, they changed

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others.[1][2]

into

Zen emphasizes rigorous self-restraint, meditation-practice and the subsequent insight into nature of mind (見性, Ch. jiànxìng, Jp. kensho, "perceiving the true nature") and nature of things (without arrogance or egotism), and the personal expression of this insight in daily life, especially for the benefit of others.[1][2] These views are, however, contested within the teachings itself, as well as academically.[3][4][5] There are also scholars who argue that even buddhism was originally nothing more than just the middle way,[6] which pointed to the practice of dhyana,[6][7] though what that means continues to be debated academically.

References

  1. ^ a b Yoshizawa 2009, p. 41.
  2. ^ a b Sekida 1989.
  3. ^ Dumoulin, Heisig & Knitter (2005), pp. 68, 70–73, 167–168
  4. ^ Bielefeldt, Carl (1990), "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation". University of California Press, ISBN 0520068351
  5. ^ McRae 1986, p. 115-116.
  6. ^ a b Vetter 1988.
  7. ^ Davidson 2003, p. 147.
  • It's unclear which views are contested:
  • The references given here lack the corresponding sources; the refs seem to be copied from other articles, without the sources.
  • Dumoulin doesnot reflect the academic concensus; see the intro by McRae to the reissue. Dumoulin is worse than outdated, yet his books are still appealing. And yes, they're used in this article, for non-controversial statements.
  • Those sources do not support the rejection of any of these four points - as far as they can be verified; Bielefeldt lacks a pagenumber, so it's impossible to inferere which rejection of which point is supposedly supported by Bielefeldt
  • The line There are also scholars ... academically is nonsensical; if we take it that the IP objects to the notion that dhyana is central to Zen, then why argue it may even have been central to the earliest Buddhism - unless the IP thinks that the lead argues that meditation is exclusive to Zen? In that case, their reading comprehension is seriously lacking. This may indeed be the point, given that they also argue that meditation doesn't always mean zazen or even zen meditation (they probably also missed the explanation that Chan dhyana-practice was informed by, or based on, Sarvastivada-practices).
  • The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; these additions are a (rambling) argument, not a summary of contents
  • The fact that other references also lack pagenumbers is irrelevant here; it's only relevant when there are controversial statements, which need to be verified. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
  • Regarding zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after. - later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.

All in all, the IP seems to be pushing their personal (mis)understanding of Zen, handling sources in an inadeqaute way, and disregarding, or not understanding, the processes at Wikipedia. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kek "abuse"
morons 62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you realize theres more to wiki than just this page right
and ive seen other pages, incl. outside the range of these topics, have the same issues
whole paragraphs without citations, with lingering questions for confirmation
outdated data
misrepresentation of cultures/views/ideas, even stuff that is easily found elsewhere. lack of due weight
bias and petty editors with backup from mods even against more often than not new(er) users or ips
articles with overlapping information, except in one article the information is there and in the other there isn't (with no source mentioned in the place of the information that is extra in the other article). even something as simple as names
contradictory information in wiki pages that link to eachother
and even the same as here, editors not understanding a view and immediately feeling attacked and lashing out, where they sometimes concede to being wrong and having misunderstood after a conversation and abuse has already been played out. ive coincidentally seen joshua jonathan do this on multiple occasions actually on different kinds of wiki talk pages.
so, withe all this, all the abuse followed by banning and censorship after trying to stand up for myself.. how are you not fukken morons?

62.145.195.155 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has gone off the rails. I'm gonna suggest this gets compressed. Some of the points here are good (why I'm not suggesting a complete deletion) but we need cleanup so those points can be found quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zen

Zen is not chinese. Whole article is as scientific as those that talk about "alternative science" in herbal ancestral studies.

Zen, Chan, Jhāna. Do you even speak and undesrtant? Listen and read? Esteban.Vicenzi (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zen&oldid=1225303919"