User talk:Windy Wanderer

Questions will be answered on this page.

In response to your message. Please read WP:V. The point is that we should only state in the article what the source says. We must not interpret. Peter jackson (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. From the source I understood that the plurality referred to practices or teachings. What was your understanding of what the word "plurality" referred to in this source? (i.e., a plurality or singularity of what?)

Also, are you still interested in tackling the re-organization? I'm interested in helping as an outside neutral editor. Best, Windy Wanderer (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that the source doesn't make clear what it means, so we can't do so either. In fact you might argue that even my wording is an interpretation. Perhaps we should actually say

"Many scholars say that there is not one Buddhism but many Buddhisms, and the latest edition of one textbook is retitled Buddhist Religions."

I certainly want Buddhism reorganized into a coherent structure. However, when we tried this before, people just kept reverting, so I'm reluctant to try it again myself. If you as an outside neutral editor would like to try, feel free. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The re-wording sounds good. I'll insert it.

What were people's objections to the re-organization? I don't have enough knowledge to do a re-organization but I'm a retired wordsmith and know Wikipedia fairly well from years of dabbling. For me, the core policies of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are what counts and I have a good eye for that. It seems that you have the knowledge for the reorganization. Why don't we move this to the discussion page and start there. Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending a negative tone. See there for substantive explanation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]