The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Recently massive changes were made to the article without prior discussion. That's not cool. Discuss major changes here and get consensus before implementing them. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the writer of the original article (in the Portuguese version, before it was translated to the English version), I completely Disagree with the major removal of contents. It was merely a removal for the sake of removal, with no regards to the other contributors and against the spirit and nature of this project: if the justification for the erasure is "There was never supposed to be such overlap between this and the Vajrayana articles in content", there should at least have been made a transfer of the removed paragraphs from this article to the presumed main ones. Also, that main reason is unfounded, since he removed many paragraphs that aren't pertinent to the Vajrayana article or to any other one (for instance, as one of the removed paragraphs states: "not all scholarly strands consider that esoteric Buddhism falls within the category of tantrism, or that all esoteric Buddhism would be tantric".). One example of such is the Pure Land Buddhism, which is a category of Esoteric Buddhism apart from the Vajrayana. There is also the Esoteric Theravada. In addition, there are many further paragraphs that are more proper to this article, such as the ones about the epistemic problems of the validity of esotericism according to different Buddhism schools and interpretations: this is not necessarily related to the Vajrayana (since it covers the Hinayana and Mahayana views of this problem), but to the category of esotericism. Many of other removed paragraphs are essential to this article, such as the development of esotericism in Buddhism in those three Asian regions, with their differences and interrelation with historical events, persons and syncretisms. One example is the section of the Japanese Esoteric Buddhism, in which native categories of esotericism such as Tomitsu and Mikkyo are discussed, and are more proper to this article than to any other (it would be way too specific for Vajrayana or Buddhism in Japan). In my view, the removal poorly evaluated the contents and was too subjective for stating: "This article was already too long as it was", without preserving relevant information. Bafuncius (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I'll try to move some paragraphs over to the Vajrayana article, but we can't keep the entire Buddhism section as that section would likely be split to its own article if the former article didn't exist.
I'm also honestly not very knowledgeable about esoteric Buddhism, so I don't know which paragraphs should and shouldn't be in the article, but you, Skyerise, or any other knowledgeable editor should ideally cut the Buddhism section to at least half of what it is now. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed paragraphs that can be moved, so I will try to reduce as possible in the next few days as you suggested, Flemmish Nietzsche. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree with @Flemmish Nietzsche:. We already have an article on Vajrayana and do not need this long bad translation here. Consensus is now to implement FM's cuts, so please don't revert again. You are outnumbered. Skyerise (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Skyerise. Honestly just seems Bafuncius is trying to push their written content onto the English wiki without recognizing that it is already present in the Vajrayana article. Best regards. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus of two? What is this rhetoric about being "outnumbered", Skyerise? I can ping several other interested editors here. Don't be impatient, I already said that I will edit; and consider also, as I said, that not all information pertains to the article Vajrayana: Esoteric Buddhism involves other categories that are not necessarily that one! Don't make this a edit war. Bafuncius (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are violating the rules on the use of automated translations and need to desist. Stop filling the article with duplicative mistranslated garbage please, or you are likely to be blocked. Skyerise (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is going against good faith, Skyerise. Since the beginning I've stated solid reasons about the massive removal being unfounded and against the nature of this project. I've compromised in editing. And now, all I see are threats from you and attitudes that go against the necessary time for a proper discussion and editing. Report whatever you feel that is wrong to some superior instance. I wasn't the one that translated the article. Whoever sees this talk page and the removal of content will see that you two are exasperated. You will have to prove that all the parts removed are "duplicative mistranslated garbage". Also, you are trying to force a "consensus" of two, without the presence of other editors. Bafuncius (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bafuncius: You can't win an edit war against two editors. We don't have to prove anything. It is you who has to justify inclusion against the generally accepted use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which you haven't. Skyerise (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the removed part; I don't see a 'bad translation' there, but a lot of worthwhile information. And an editor who made a sincere contribution to Wikipedia, not someone intend to 'win an edit-war'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Of course, material is always preserved in the article history. It is not necessary to keep it in the article just so it can be mined for facts not present in the Vajrayana article. The massive amount of information added should have been split up and added to the most relevant article(s), not coatracked here. The editor can also copy it to their sandbox to preserve it. This article should not duplicate the content of multiple articles: I see duplication of Vajrayana, Chinese Esoteric Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism and Dzogchen. There are probably others. There is way more material than permitted by WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and it's mostly not needed here. Editors need to be more selective about where content is integrated. English Wikipedia has chosen to present this topic differently from Portuguese Wikipedia, and should not be forced or coerced into duplicating Portuguese Wikipedia's more monolithic article. Skyerise (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Buddhism is that several of its subtraditions are entirely esoteric. That certainly includes Vajrayana, Chinese Esoteric Buddhism, and Dzogchen. Tibetan Buddhism as a whole is a bit trickier, as it does have many exoteric elements, while the Vajrayana within it is at its essence esoteric. Therefore what we say about the first three should be brief, and mostly focus on presenting a short overview, perhaps the lead from each of the articles customized to emphasize the esoteric elements. How the esoteric tradition fits into the broader areas of Chinese and Himalayan culture should also be touched on, as well as historical influences on each other's esotericism, but mostly these topics are well covered in their respective articles. Any additional information specifically about esoteric elements should be carefully added to the respective articles, to avoid duplication of material in our already robust articles on the topic. Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also call Javierfv1212 and Invokingvajras to help ponder and overview the ongoing situation in this article. A single user, Skyerise, is proposing what I consider to be an active dismantling of the text. What is the necessity of splitting small sections to create articles such as "Esotericism in Zoroastrianism", "Esotericism in Confucianism" etc.? I Disagree with the split proposals. Bafuncius (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bafuncius: The purpose is so the subarticles can go into more and deeper detail than we have here. Esotericism is a deep subject, and to try to cover multiple traditions of it in one article is limiting. The same is done with many other large or formerly-large articles such as Witchcraft, which is broken down by continent, and Magic (supernatural), which is broken down by historic and cultural periods. I am also questioning why exactly we have separate articles on Eastern religions and Eastern esotericism. Once the sub articles are split out, we can discuss whether Eastern esotericism should simply be merged into Eastern religions, with two summary sections for each religion, one summarizing the exoteric elements and other summarizing the esoteric elements. As far as I can see, unlike Western esotericism, all the Eastern traditions fall under the rubric of religion. The other reason is that articles on each of the religions should also cover the topic of the esoteric elements within that religion, so summaries of the separate articles would also be needed in those articles to avoid duplicating the main body of esoteric coverage in two places as well. Skyerise (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern esotericism is a category discussed in the academia; there are no reasons for it not existing as an independent article, encompassing the various forms of esotericism analyzed by scholars in the Eastern traditions. You are just confirming your bias and desire that this article should vanish, by proposing the absurd idea of merging it with "Eastern religions". Also, the affirmation "unlike Western esotericism, all the Eastern traditions fall under the rubric of religion" is nonsense, the whole of Western esotericism also involves religion and religious beliefs (even if one or other tradition doesn't consider itself a religion). Bafuncius (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is not absurd at all. I'll leave it to the other editors to express their opinions, thank you. I already know what you think. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bafuncius kindly invited me here to join in this discussion. Am still pondering over the splits, and all I'd note at this point is that there is a lack of clarity or a lack of distinction (beginning in the lede) between "religion" and "esotericism" and, in some cases, a more appropriate term might be "philosophy" or "way of being" (Zen being, perhaps, one of the most notable examples). And then there is the distinction between "belief" (which tends to be exoteric) and "knowledge" or "gnosis" (which tends to be more esoteric). As the depth psychologist, C.G. Jung once responded in an interview: "I don't need to believe, I know."
From my own experience, I would say that religion is, almost by definition, concerned with the exoteric, an outer circle which forms around an initial central, esoteric core or inner circle.
The exoteric has its beneficial uses, for example in protecting that core; and, together with an intermediate circle, the mesoteric, through work for the self, the group, and the Work, the mesoteric might lead aspirants toward eventual entry into the inner circle. And the exoteric has its detrimental consequences, for example forming an accretion around the original, inner dynamic, obscuring, stifling, and even denying it, and being too literal minded. After a time, when the original dynamic has moved on, all we might be left with is an institution; an empty husk which people take to be "the real thing".
Sorry to rabbit on, but these are the sort of considerations I'd be making in assessing the material and the possibility of splitting it. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with the article and adding to the discussion, Esowteric! It is important to be noted that in the article the terms "religion", "esoteric" and other related terms are arranged according to the academic use. Bafuncius (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the unfortunate thing, Bafuncius. (a) Academics and orientalists are often involved in a study of esoterica, rather than a study in esoterica, and (b) it's largely what might be termed a study of the fossil record. Thankfully, especially in more recent years, there are academics and orientalists who are also practitioners and "know their onions". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
,_logo.png){kind=logo}
Disagree with the major removal of contents. It was merely a removal for the sake of removal, with no regards to the other contributors and against the spirit and nature of this project: if the justification for the erasure is "There was never supposed to be such overlap between this and the Vajrayana articles in content", there should at least have been made a transfer of the removed paragraphs from this article to the presumed main ones. Also, that main reason is unfounded, since he removed many paragraphs that aren't pertinent to the Vajrayana article or to any other one (for instance, as one of the removed paragraphs states: "not all scholarly strands consider that esoteric Buddhism falls within the category of tantrism, or that all esoteric Buddhism would be tantric".). One example of such is the Pure Land Buddhism, which is a category of Esoteric Buddhism apart from the Vajrayana. There is also the Esoteric Theravada. In addition, there are many further paragraphs that are more proper to this article, such as the ones about the epistemic problems of the validity of esotericism according to different Buddhism schools and interpretations: this is not necessarily related to the Vajrayana (since it covers the Hinayana and Mahayana views of this problem), but to the category of esotericism. Many of other removed paragraphs are essential to this article, such as the development of esotericism in Buddhism in those three Asian regions, with their differences and interrelation with historical events, persons and syncretisms. One example is the section of the Japanese Esoteric Buddhism, in which native categories of esotericism such as Tomitsu and Mikkyo are discussed, and are more proper to this article than to any other (it would be way too specific for Vajrayana or Buddhism in Japan). In my view, the removal poorly evaluated the contents and was too subjective for stating: "This article was already too long as it was", without preserving relevant information. Bafuncius (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)