User talk:Victor williams 84

Warning

Please refrain from adding the Tamil name of Bodhidharma to the lede of his article. He is known by many names around the world, so preference shouldn't be given to a single one. As I stated in this edit summary, I have started a discussion on the talk page. Please discuss the matter there instead of repeatedly reposting the material to the page. If you continue to hop IPs to add the Tamil name, the page will be protected from the editing of anonymous and new members, meaning you will not be able to add anything. Also, please be advised of the Three Revert Rule. If you revert the page more than three times within a 24 hour period, your account can be blocked. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you check the edit history for the article, you will see a pattern of different IPs and newly established members (who only just happen to edit the Bodhidharma page) adding and re-adding Bodhidharma's Tamil name to the article without discussing it on the talk page. I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006, so this usually means that either one person is hopping IPs (i.e. sock puppetry) or several people are gang editing an article to get the information that they want added. You are the first person to actually comment about it (although you should have posted something to the talk I started).

As I stated before, his Tamil name keeps on getting removed because he is known by so many names around the world. You stated that other Wikipedia articles include multiple names for other historical personages in an info box, but always post their native name in the lede. That's normally true if they are concretely known to have come from that area. However, there is not enough historical information to say he really did come from Southern India. Most of what is known about him comes from Chinese records, and none of them agree with each other. There are some historians who think he really didn't have anything to do with Chan Buddhism, and there are others who don't even think he was a historical person. I took the liberty of looking at some of the sources from the article which support his Tamil origin. The Bodhidharma Anthology (p. 2) says he was from East India. The Zen Sourcebook: Traditional Documents From China, Korea, and Japan (p. 9) says “Because accounts of Bodhidharma’s life and teaching were generally written some time after his life, they are historically questionable; a few scholars have even wondered if he existed at all.” The author then goes on to mention how “later accounts” say he was the son of a monarch in Southern India. The Zen Experience (chapter 1) presents the “Zen legend” that Bodhidharma came from southern India. It also states that he stayed in the Shaolin Temple, which is not a reliable story. The first source mentioning him actually setting foot in Shaolin is from the 8th century. This of course postdates him by hundreds of years. Across the Himalayan Gap: An Indian Quest for Understanding China (p. 188) says he was the son of a king of Kanchi. The author later says, “The historicity of Bodhidharma has been controversial. The first mention of Kanchi is in “The Record of the Transmission of the Lamp” compiled in 1002." Again, this posdates his supposed life by hundreds of years. It is evident from these sources that his origin has not truly been established.

Also, it is important to note that there is zero historical evidence linking Bodhidharma to Kalaripayattu or Kung Fu. The only thing linking the two styles is legend. In fact, if you go to the bottom of the Bodhidharma article, you will read how the notion of him being the father of Chinese kung fu comes from a forged 17th century qigong manual, the Yijin Jing.

Lastly, you said "I'm not a paratrooper from US/UK writing about Guru Bodhidharma without even remotely associated to his teaching." You are implying that I do not have the right to write about Bodhidharma because I am not apart of his lineage. I'm afraid that I don't need a connection to him to write about him. This makes me an unbiased party. I don't have an emotional interest in the subject. Therefore, my editing falls within Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guideline. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)