Talk:Shaolin Monastery

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Buddhism Mid‑importance 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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

I'm surprised there's nothing on famous Wooden Dummy labyrinth of Shaolin in this article. It's pretty famous and worth noticing, either as historical fact or just popular modern times myth. I don't know which one is true :) p.s. not sure how is it called in English --78.62.150.245 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dummies you are thinking about did comprise a labrynth, but they were just like the dummies used all over China in Wing Chun and other arts. Except that in Shao-lin there were 108 of them in rows facing each other.

Lots of cool legendary stuff about Shao-lin is unsourced. Even in China much of it is seen as legend. For example, the more obvious omission from here is Ta Lin, the "Great Forest" which is the burial place of all previous masters--that is a real place and is even seen in certain films.

The Pool of Nine Dragons is also confirmed as a place of practice and purification. Without original Shao-lin historical sources, those cannot really be cited either. There are so many more stories that are legends.75.21.155.253 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'll gradually add the Talin and the dragons pool to the article. SHemmati10 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin temple have not had such dummies. those kinds of dummies and tools are used mostly in the southern provinces of China and have no relevance to Shaolin temple. however, the name Shaolin is used somehow randomly as a brand name for many temples in southern and northern China. many of these temples use dummies. SHemmati10 (talk) 5:35 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Could we at least open a discussion here as to why "Shao-lin Ssu" cannot be included in the transliteration? You are making a mere point of view if you think people only say it as "si". In the dialect they speak up there, where it counts, it is pronounced "Ssu". The "si" you mention is Cantonese speech--and by the way, if you choose to transliterate with "si" you must also put "Siu-lum", which is the way those dialects pronounce it. Otherwise you are simply putting a wrong transliteration.

Also, could the editor interefering with grammatical improvements make a better argument than "it was OK as it was"?76.195.82.230 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing pronunciation with orthography, and your edit was reverted because you incorrectly claimed "ssu" to be pinyin and altered the valid pinyin romanization. Also, take care not to mix Cantonese and Mandarin together as you did with the Cantonese addition,. Ergative rlt (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Ergative is correct. Please see this dictionary entry. Notice the provided Cantonese equivalents in the right hand corner. Ssu is the older

Wade-Giles representation of sì, which is Pinyin. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, could the editor interefering with grammatical improvements make a better argument than "it was OK as it was"?76.195.82.230 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing pronunciation with orthography, and your edit was reverted because you incorrectly claimed "ssu" to be pinyin and altered the valid pinyin romanization. Also, take care not to mix Cantonese and Mandarin together as you did with the Cantonese addition,. Ergative rlt (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Ergative is correct. Please see this dictionary entry. Notice the provided Cantonese equivalents in the right hand corner. Ssu is the older

Wade-Giles representation of sì, which is Pinyin. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

"During the Tang Dynasty, Emperor Taizong granted the Shaolin Temple extra land and special "imperial dispensation" to eat meat and drink, making Shaolin the only Buddhist temple in China that's not dry, although this practice is ceased today.[12]" Professor Shahar does not corroborate the above paragraph, in page 46 of The Shaolin Monastery History, Religion and The Martial Arts one can read: "...it is hard to know weather this novel approach to carnivorousness preceded the movie or originated with it". Also in the Shaolin Monatery Stele on Mount Song by Tonami Mamoru, there is not mentioned of Li Shimin granting permission to eat meat; the rewards as translated by Mamoru are: "forty qing of lands and one watermill" pages 17-18, 35. Not every book out there is a reliable source, I sugest to remove or modify the paragraph. (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.39.126 (talk) [reply]

Abbot Shi Yongxin has no clearly cited or sourced list of ancestry, therefore I have removed the name of the Shao-lin abbot who preceded him. In fact there is no clear statement about who served as abbot before Shi Yongxin Fojia. I myself have seen at least three "Shao-lin abbots" AT THE SAME TIME, all immediately preceding Shi Yongxin Fojia.

Because of the Communist iron grip in China, I do not trust any lineages or Shi Yongxin for that matter, but I will keep that to myself. You need to clarify this Communist repression and scheming in the section on Shao-lin's recent history. You do not mention the fleeing of Shao-lin priests to Taiwan, India, Hong Kong and America, for example - all AMPLY documented.

By the way, I do not require lectures about confusing Mandarin and Cantonese. It is this article that needs to be careful to be more consistent with the romanization systems. Sometimes Wade-Giles is used in place of Pinyin, and sometimes that is preferable!75.21.105.12 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it yourself. Nothing is holding you back from making edits. Just make sure you leave any personal biases off to the side, and present reliable sources. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sage advice to the original post; but I can't see that IP had any "personal biases".--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to his emotionally charged statements concerning Communism (e.g., its "iron grip in China") and its supposed negative effects on later Shaolin history. I just wanted to make sure that he provided verifiable references on the subject, as opposed to his opinion. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Polly and Gene Ching have a lot to say in support of this CCP "iron grip", I think. Agreed, it must not be emotional or POV, but as I say, lots of citable material does support the general view.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 13:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I go around fixing orphans articles, durning my ref searching for Hungarian_Shaolin_Temple I found these links and they seem to be about this article str monks and [1] the last one I'm not sure if it is the Chinese or the hungarian. Please take a look and let me know. Blackash have a chat 04:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting discussion of these in Martial Arts as Embodied Knowledge: Asian Traditions in a Transnational World, State University of New York, [2].

Besides the stories about embezzlement and having children with 2 prostitutes, there's the whole story of his more or less making a business of the temple, leading to him being referred to as the CEO monk. Eg "In February he announced plans for Shaolin to build a $297m (£190m) complex in Australia that would include a temple, a hotel, a kung fu academy and a golf course."[]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinas-famous-shaolin-kung-fu-temple-rocked-by-sex-and-embezzlement-scandal-10436369.html] "It could be a sticky end for the monk who has angered some in China by his ruthless commercialization of Shaolin, the birthplace of Chinese martial arts and Zen Buddhism, by renting it out for reality TV shows and computer games among other things.[3].

[4][5] and [6], which has led him to be dubbed the "CEO monk", recent scandals.[7] [8] [9] Doug Weller (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society sets itself up for this kind of thing. There is a point they are trying to make, which we can't seem to get any other way. When the Tibetans came to vermont they went for alcohol in a big way. The acolytes had to go and buy booze so the monks could whoop it up. No one else was allowed in. I have a report about one of the lecturers. He stood up tall in yellow robes and started in on a Buddhist lecture. Then he started to hawk and spit. He bent over and farted. Then his voice broke and started to beg forgiveness for his age. Another great teacher used to have his students sitting there in asanas under great discipline supposedly meditating. Then he would get up, take out a squirt gun, and start squirting everyone. What's the message, Doug? When he died the sky was full of real rainbows. Everyone said, aw, the monks have thrown something into the air to create rainbows. Who's deluding whom? I suppose we could declare pompously, "what came ye into the wilderness to see?" I don't even want to get started on the other religions. We hear about money-laundering, philandering in a big way, use of monastic facilities for screaming torture while the monks sing hymns.Botteville (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts By Meir Shahar[10]. Looks extremely useful. Doug Weller (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dating back 1,500 years when founded by Fang Lu-Hao ...

Is this a mistranslation? Some institutions have been called "ancient" by their founders ... —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no ...it makes no sense ...it wouldn't look like that ...just rubbish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got to remember a large part of this is showmanship, magician stuff. They got it from Sanskrit, which has, for example, meditational exercises to levitate, walk on water, dematerialize, and the like. Not that there is not a true side of Buddhism. You put your credibility down and take what you bought for better or for worse. We can only present what someone else says, true or false.Botteville (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the shaolin temple was the last remaining stronghold of the ming dynasty. it was repeatedly attacked by the qing, who failed until they finally burnt it down from the inside with help from spies around 1666. during these ming-qing wars, shaolin was at its biggest & strongest. it was burnt to a crisp and never restored since, just as china has never been chinese-governed since. the qing banned martial arts and have always despised everything about shaolin and its culture. they made a mockery of it by turning it into a gymnastic tourist attraction with no real martial technique only showy stuff.

this has all been ignored and the impression is given to the contrary - this article makes it look like nothing of significance happened in the 1600s ming era, and makes it look like the 1700s qing only loved the shaolin. utter propaganda. people in china would speak about it today, but they'd be killed for it, hence why it takes a well informed westerner like me to say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E209:E701:E1BD:E09C:91F9:5AF8 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be two paragraphs of personal opinion. In order to use it you would have to cite who had these opinions, and it can't be you. However, I doubt if there is room for a section such as this. The article just can't cover everything, which is why you are not seeing this and not seeing that. Think you might try some editing? Its tough but it has rewards.Botteville (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I just wanted to introduce myself, I am a student that will be editing this page for a class project. I will be using scholarly books, encyclopedias, and perhaps an article or two. For my project, I will be creating a new section, and writing about the oriental warrior monk trope. I plan on finding out how the Shaolin obtained this image, and also the real Shaolin and the knowledge they have to contribute to the world. SChapter (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SChapter, welcome to Wikipedia, as well as this particular page. Your contributions will no doubt add a much-needed perspective on the topic. As you begin to contribute to the article, please make sure to familiarize yourself with WP:No original research in order to avoid some common pitfalls we all fall prey to. Happy editing! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a very interesting subject to talk about and you are using a lot of different sources for that which will definitely make this page more valuable. Your oriental warrior monk trope part will add a lot of important information along with the other parts. I would suggest that you divide them into different parts so that it's easier for the reader to follow and understand. Other than that I think your have a solid plan for you page. SoloMunn (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP. I have to add some realistic cautions, however, which may save you some time and trouble. First, this is not a scholarly site. WP does not welcome original research. You can only do what someone else has already done, and you must cite those persons. Granted there is often a fuzzy line between presentation and research. But, if you have a unique point of view, some new insights, putting it here is like casting the proverbial pearls, especially after the attacks begin, and make no mistake, they will begin. So, you need a thick skin if you are going to persist. My co-editors above are being somewhat over-sanguine. Second, this would not be your page and your work as my co-editors suggest. Once you press return you give it to WP. Anyone thereafter can do anything they wish with it whether you like it or not, provided they are careful to follow the editing policy. You might write what you think is an especially fine sentence, and it might be, but someone is sure to hack it right out because you gave no reference for it. Writing for WP takes a lot of patience with no guarantee that anything you write will last very long. You might want to consider some other vehicle. I've seen some pretty fine writers throw up their hands in disgust here. On the other hand, some really useful material has survived. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SChapter (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Skidepedia23, The Purple Hamster.

— Assignment last updated by Ziegenbalg66 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox chosen for this article is infobox religious building, which implies Buddhism is a religion, and religions, I think you will agree, believe in God. There is a parameter in the box, | deity=. On attempting to fill this in I was squelched - the material deleted with some sarcastic comment. I will not state the editor. This editor could do this because I did not give a reference. The immediate reply to this sort of behavior rudely undiscussed is to find a reference on the Buddhist god. But, there are all sorts of questions, such as, is Buddha God? Is Buddhism a religion? To what do all these names the Buddhists have refer? You might think this is trivial but not so. Some very religious people of different religions deny God ("God is dead") meaning they deny any concept of God, as God is above conceptualization. Zen gives the appearance of such a view, and a physical event called "enlightenment" seems to answer all the questions. Now, here's the problem. We have presented Buddhism as a religion. We see monks showing all kinds of reverence but to this or that deity and especially before statues. However, we never hear what they are reverencing. In short, what shall we put in the "| deity" space? Shall we say god? Shall we list some of the deities Buddhists seem to worship? I'm a Christian myself. In the interest of objectivity I would like you to inform me what I should put for deity. If we cannot get a consensus I will look it up in the best ref I can find and put what they say in. Then you can go through the "referenced material" discussion. I don't need you mistaking your own arrogance and condescension for mine, as one editor did. Go:Botteville (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, my WP friend. I expected a move such as yours on the article, and indeed you said about what I expected the deleter to say. No argument with that; in fact, no argument I believe is the watchword. That leaves us, however, with a practical problem. Buddhism is cast as a religion on WP. Someone chose this box on that account. Religion of what? Shall we say here whether Buddhists believe in God? What do they believe in? Nothing? Do help us out with this problem, will you? Is Buddhism a religion? Do they believe in God? Tell us, the whole world is waiting to here. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Botteville, I would like to be able to engage in an open and honest discussion with you on this, or any other topic, but I detect a strong hint of condescension in your tone, which will make this endeavour difficult for me. If you're willing to be a little more humble in your approach, I'm more than happy to discuss with you. In the meantime, Buddhism is a religion, and this discussion belongs on the article talk page, not my user page. Thanks. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry you feel that way. I don't think you would be happy to discuss it with me, as you don't sound too happy, nor are you volunteering anything. I detect a tone of antagonism in your communication. I thought at first you might be giving me a Zen approach. Now I see you aren't. I can take what you say as what you really think. I don't think we have anything to discuss. I know how to deal with you and I will. That doesn't necessarily mean it is best to do anything. That infobox is not what it seems. It is out of date. Many of the parameters have been deprecated without notification. As for your opinion, I don't care a rat's tail what you may think. Instead of saying directly what I asked you, you want me to crawl a bit first. With all due respect to a WP editor, I decline. There might be a problem here, which I see now might need a consensus, but I am looking further into it. I thought maybe your opinion and mine might have something of a consensus, but I guess not. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred the conversation from my user talk page here, because as a content dispute, this is where it belongs. It will also go to show the validity or respective arguments.

@Botteville, I don't know what you're all about, but the message you left on my talk page appears to demonstrate your disregard for dissenting opinions on the changes you wish to make to the page. You have gone ahead and added content that is entirely unreferenced, which constitutes OR. I hope you are aware that this is not acceptable on WP. All content must be referenced, otherwise it will be deleted. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only dissenting opinion I see is your reversion of my improvements to the previous material already marked unreferenced. I told you references are following. The previous material is totally unreferenced. What, you want to restore unreferenced material to unreferenced material? Can't you wait 24 hours for the references? This is plain and simple edit warring and a person who has been on here as long as you have ought to know better. This is unacceptable. Maybe you need to take a break from WP for a while. Now, give me chance to add the requested references. Furthermore the titles don't need to be referenced. I'm using WHS titles as we cite this as a WHS. What's wrong with you? As far as your deletion of the deity is concerned, how can you say I neglected dissenting opinion? I put the matter out for consensus review and you have NOT given the requested opinion or the requested discussion. What is this, you follow whatever trivial grudge you feel like and put out a barrage of edit-warring lies to cover it? What did you think was going to happen? You need to resign. At least follow the procedures here. I'd say, put another unreferenced tag on, but the previous already had such a tag, which I left.Botteville (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC) PS I can't work on this 24-7, so just be a little patient, if that is possible for you. What happened to the Zen?[reply]

@Botteville, I never claimed to be Zen. You shouldn't be adding content until your references are ready. Lastly, from now on, I encourage you to restrict your comments to the article content. If you continue to make personal attacks against me and comments related to my person, I will report your behaviour. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought you claimed to be Zen. Just for a minute there you sounded like it. I guess not. Now you don't sound like it. But, I do not care what you are. I just want you to be nice, until it is time not to be nice, which is the admin's decision, not yours. You set the tone on your first deletion, by refering to my |deity= statement as "random" and non-sensical. OK. But then when I asked what it should be you blew up. Don't blow up. Talk. I repeat, if we are presenting Buddhism as a religion, which in fact we are in many articles, we need some form of the deity in there no matter what they choose to call it. But that is in the mill now. Contribute if you wish or not, just as you please. Having presented Buddhism as religion we cannot now present it as good old-fashioned atheism or communism, which I am sure you are not doing, but it limits our options. If you want to suggest we change the box or the approach for this article, do so. I'm not making attacks on you, only on your approach. I only know you by what you say. From now on I encourage you to follow the spirit of the WP code, always tell the truth, don't make up phony excuses as to why you can't discuss or why you have reverted. For example, what minority dissent of yours have I reverted or refused? And yet you characterize me as intolerant. In case you didn't know it, you aren't alone on this article. You can report me to whomever you like, but if you think this discussion is not being closely monitored by at least one admin, think again. They are the bouncers here, but they try no to do it lightly. Pay attention. I suppose if a genuine content issue were to arise here the matter would be arbitrated. For now they aren't going to hold our hands. At one point they had a child in charge of arbitration. Role reversal, but it was meant as statement to us. For references, I think if you give someone more that a couple of hours before reversion you will save us all some time. I've had people dog me as I edit and revert as soon as I saved. They would get up early just to do that. You DON'T want to be one of those. They aren't around now, I believe. WP may be slow to act, but it does act. I've had the suggestion a number of times that I pop in completed work with full references. I do that if I can, but now I am working on multiple articles on a topic and it just isn't convenient to keep all the refs caught up. If you see a place that needs a ref stick in a request for one. That gives me more time. The worst possible and most antagonistic way is just to delete text with no more discussion than "no reference" or "irrelevant" or "random and incomprehensible." Do I look like a random person to you? I'm trying to get us to be the best we can be. So that about covers it. What you do with this knowledge is up to you.Botteville (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Botteville, this is your last warning from me. Restrict your commentary to the article content, keep it relevant, and avoid stating your opinions about other editors. If you do not follow this guideline, you will be reported for abuse and bullying. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Botteville, have you finished adding references to the content you've added so far, or are you still collecting them? In its current form, the content requires more referencing. Thanks. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm never actually finished collecting them. Whenever I find a good ref I put it in. I appreciate your taking my suggestion and putting in requests for clarification where you think it is relevant. It gives me an idea of where the text can be improved. I have more to add to that introductory section. I appreciate your not attempting further deletions of the material I feel should be in there and on which I have worked so hard.

There is one more topic to discuss. You notified me of your report for abuse and bullying. I guess you did not wish to wait to see if I followed the guideline you felt YOU had to impose. Since I was notified, it seems to me the topic is open to discussion. Strictly speaking the case would not qualify for edit warring on the basis of number of reversions. We each reverted once. Looking up your report I find that it failed. Nevertheless I note that you feel bullied and I hope that we can do better. My only guideline for you to follow is the WP editing policy, which is why I appreciate your tagging rather than deleting. Might we not get back to the article now?Botteville (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way you express yourself, I have trouble discerning whether you are being condescending/passive aggressive or if your words are spoken in good faith. Perhaps it's the language barrier. Either way, I'm happy to focus on the article. Please don't do what you did here though [11], where you inexplicably duplicated several sections. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a simple man and a free man. I got no need to double speak. I'm not under any fear. I live in a free country so I speak my mind freely (within limits of common sense.) Naturally there is always a price to pay and of course I have paid it. I pretty much say what I mean and mean what I say. Naturally I'm chagrined that I didn't get my own way. That's human is it not? So, the simplest interpretation of what I say is best. I admit I can be sarcastic. Usually there is no question about when I am. In the article, it does not bother me that you alter what I write. A career writer such as I was knows perfectly well that his stuff needs editing. In my business they hired writers but also editors to edit the writing. It was only the total reversion of everything I was trying to do that made me see red. Think about it. It is a denial of one's existence, like when a friend or former friend or someone who should be a friend cuts you cold. One place I worked solved the problem by forbidding employees to speak to the boss except when spoken to. But, you're not interested in what I have to say, are you? (sarcasm). Whether there be a language barrier I do not know as I do not know your language. Undoubtedly there would be some cross-cultural misinterpretations. Par for the international course, but you didn't want to discuss this topic. Just have to live with it. Using Google translate anyone can work with any language to some degree. My language is English and I am a New Englander. We can be tough to take sometimes. Well enough of this chatting. After this section I will be off this for a while as there are other related articles and tasks I need to get back to. But, you know, it does need a lot of polishing. It is only a c-class article. If you are going to stay on it I suggest a reorg and a good check for personal opinion. Give it the same scrutiny you are giving me. Well I really got to go.Botteville (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Botteville, apologies for the misunderstanding; I'm not sure why I assumed there was a language barrier between us. What I'll point out is that your convoluted and verbose way of expressing yourself isn't conducive to building trust, quite the opposite; at least that's been my experience. I'll leave it at that, as I'm sure we each have other tasks to attend to. Good day. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to your attempted report you have no right on WP to make such a statement. It is abusive. You're not here to make evaluations of me as a writer. As far as trust is concerned, you didn't trust me from the start. I had no chance with you at all. You began by demanding humility as a condition for even talking about the God issue. That is not a proper demand to make on WP. You want me to be in a position of suing for your trust. In the ordinary world we term this manipulation. I won't be manipulated. I refrain from counter-name-calling, except to point out you are being manipulative. This is not right. As far as your comment is concerned, in my business I never yet heard of one writer being happy with the prose of any other writer so I'm inclined just to tolerate it as part of professionalism, but don't reply too much on my toleration. As I said, your comments also are being observed. You keep looking as though you might want to make peace and then you turn around and make comments like this. In my world we call this "being jerked around." Right now it seems cynical to me but in view of your position as editor I'm leaving it open. But now, you cause me to change my mind. I'm staying on this article, every bit of it. We will slug it out as long as it takes to get a good article, back burner, of course. Later, I'm sure.Botteville (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By this time it is obvious that this editor and I are not agreeing on anything at all. To date this editor has attempted to revert every change I make. I think it is time to present the truth, as he is moving up in complaints, as he has a right to do, of course. To the idea of wreaking havoc. I am on this article because it was heavily tagged with various kinds of section tags. So, it was in bad shape to start with. There was an initial attempt by me to fill in the "deity parameter" which R. deleted. So, I put that issue out for public review. R. turned that review request into media circus. We are still waiting for word on what to do about that parameter. He refuses to discuss it.

Meanwhile I went on. The section previously marked "buildings" is the ONLY one I have worked on. Take a look at the article. Do you see any havoc there? I chose that because in the wikimedia section I was faced with a category of 1000 unsorted pictures. In sorting them I found I could divide them by building. This division did not correspond to the Shaolin Article and the building section was tagged. I was working on Mount Song. I found the organization of "buildings" was seriously out of date, and it had no references. So, I'm bringing it into line with current developments on the site. This whole falderal is over about 4 paragraphs in one section toward the end of the article. Take a look. What's being wrecked, where's the havoc? Plainly and simply F. is a troublemaker determined to block any improvement of the article any way he can for unstated reasons of his own. As for the other arguments, I do not know what he is talking about. He put up some tags as I requested. I've been answering those with the information he requested. "Duplicating sections" and the other complaints, I do not know what he is talking about. I didn't duplicate any sections. He's done a lot of reverting, just about everything, until I got my references in there. All right. He has a right to ask for references. He got them. What exactly is all this stuff about havoc? So, the entire issue about whether I am to be allowed to improve this article is now thoroughly aired. The admin must decide. He seems to be requesting arbitration although I have seen no such request. All I have seen is disruption. He reverts referenced material to unreferenced material without discussion. My recommendation is he be blocked from this article so we can get on with improving it. I will of course abide by whatever the admin decides, as one of its functions is to settle issues such as this. I hope these few remarks will help to settle it. Until a decision is made I will continue to update it with referenced material from high-quality sources such a Phd Thesis, UNESCO documents, and others. If you find any chaos or wrecking in the section I have been updating and say I should cease and desist of course I will. Otherwise we cannot allow one loud troublemaker to arbitrarily block any improvement. I hope this covers it.Botteville (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping we can put discussions of specific items in here independently of the above issues.Botteville (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SChapter, thank you for adding a new section to the article. I've noticed that you've only included one reference to the section, however, so the bulk of it appears to be original research. Will you be adding more references to support the new content? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the former list of buildings, current and apparently accepted architectural features, was that it is seriously out of date, and except where I have changed it still is. Things seem to happen so fast at that site that our humble material soon gets out of date. I note that most of the building and other features have no articles here, except article of features in general. I have spent some time categorizing the hundreds of pictures by building or feature so I think we are ready for the articles. I guess that at some point I will start doing that but there is plenty of work for all. Meanwhile we have this scanty, out-of-date list. Looking through this sort of material on WP I find that tables are often good-looking substitutes for lists. I propose to turn that list into a table, which would also allow us to put in a picture for such items as have them (a good many do). If no one objects I will do that at some point. Considering that this article is of such interest to so many users I thought I better announce this. I notice that since out great God argument more people have been working on this article and doing so politely. I think reading the penalties for non-cooperation was a bit sobering for us all. Thank you for your courtesy. Incidentally the Shaolin Monastery stele offers indisputable proof that this monastery was Mahayana and believed in God. I'm not yet ready to bring that to this article, might not be for a time. Meanwhile I think you are right to bring unreferenced or poorly referenced ideological material under closest scrutiny. There is a theory, reported in this encyclopedia, that Buddhists do not beleive in God, and that Buddha is not God. There ought to be some balance here. If they don't believe in God, just what were they doing in that monastery, elaborating some kind of elaborate acrobatism for the future movies? I will not be looking at this page again until I get ready to do so.Botteville (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Botteville, you recently created the new section "Access to the site", which doesn't include any references, so at the moment, it appears to be entirely based on original research. Are you planning to add supporting references? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is too a reference as I noted. It is Google maps. Don't you count that as a reference, or what? How can pointing out where something is on the map be any sort of original research? I do plan to continue that section, which seems to me is important for locating the monastery with regard to other features. Most other articles on places have it. So, you have a number of options. I would prefer you mark the specific sentence that you feel needs a separate reference just to make sure that I understand which fact it is. A second option would be to leave it alone until I get further with it. Yes, other references with maps certainly will follow. A third option would be to delete it now. I feel that would be deleting referenced material but for this I would follow my usual procedure in such cases, which is to work up more of the section and put it all back. Meanwhile I cannot understand why you are discriminating me out for this treatment when so much of this article is in bad condition and needs your work. To me it borders on harassment. The end is already known. We are going to go on like this until you get sick of it or the administration finds reason to step in. I point out that you accepted the final material under "protection" and that your absurd charges against me failed. This isn't right.Botteville (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS I found another ref right away so now it has two refs. Kindly quit saying it is unreferenced. I think two is enough but it isn't pure numbers of refs they desire. I think this takes away your option to "delete unreferenced material." If you put a tag up in some specific place I no doubt can find a ref for it. The question is when material stops being general knowledge, which does not need a ref. For example, the statement "the sky is blue" does not need a ref. Understand, WP policy requires me to take you at face value rather than as absurdly hypocritical and malicious of intent. So, I think I have covered your current critique. I suggest you let me get further, but put up tags if you must. I am a slow but persistent writer. I suggest you might use the time on the other sections.Botteville (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I found a 3rd ref right away. Ordinarily I would think this material too obvious from the map to need a ref, but you requested refs, refering to the text as "unreferenced" even though it had one. Now it has three. I think more would be overkill. I trust this closes the matter until I get more done. I would like to see more references placed by you on the tagged material above, or don't you do that sort of thing?Botteville (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a "reference" that basically says "go look in google maps" isn't really a reference, IMO. I don't generally add references unless it's an article I've created/expanded. Most of my work consists of copy editing and adding tags; you know, just the easy stuff ;) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is too a reference if you are clear about what map, which mine are. As far as your mission for copy-editing is concerned, blanket deletion is not copy editing, it is deletion. Putting the tags in is copy-editing. Why do you concentrate on my stuff when the whole rest of the article needs it worse? What is this, selective cope-editing? Moreover I never yet heard of a copy-editor whose main copy-editing is telling the writer he is a terrible writer. No excuses, please, you insult the intelligence of the other editors. Somebody has to write before you can copy-edit, so "the simple stuff" does not do it. So far mostly what you have done is sit around telling me how bad my writing is and trying to lodge a complaint against me for my objections. While I appreciate what little copy-editing you do do, the whole article needs extensive copy-editing and rewriting. When are you going to get to it, or is it only me you are interested in? I will not always have the time to work with you on improving your copy editing, so I guess we may have to slug it out for a while. I see it as an important article, worth more time than has been given it so far.Botteville (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Botteville, I want to be able to engage with you, but everything you address to me just drips of condescension and patronizing, which makes an open and honest discussion difficult. You will likely deny this, however. I have done a copy edit of the entire article, and while I'm sure it could still be improved upon (my edit, as well as the whole article itself), I am currently satisfied with its overall status. I am not overly interested in expanding or improving the page, as that it not my focus. I'm also not very inclined in adding references—again, not my area of interest.

I'm not singling you out, no need to keep looking over your shoulder—you just happen to be the only user currently editing this page, and as it's on my watchlist, I am notified of any change you make. That's just the nature of the situation, I have no personal interest in your work or person. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, that is the second time you have accused me of condescension and patronizing. I do deny this. It is YOU who are doing the patronizing and you did so right from the start. I think you ARE being honest and open. You are an honest and open bully and fully intend to be so. I suppose you have gotten away with being that for so long it comes perfectly natural to you and you think I am going to fit your submissive ideas. Well, I'm not. Now, if you are not interested in improving the page despite the tags on it that means you are only interested in copy-editing my edits. So, you are focusing on me. If you are happy with the article that means you are happy with the non-referenced parts of it, yet you do not delete THEM. This is clearly prejudice against me. You may not have any interest in me, but you clearly have an interest in making it hard for ME to work on this article. Why should I look over my shoulder for you? I do not fear you. I don't know you either, but I know how you are on this article and I do not think that is consistent with WP policy. You can't be unhappy with something I did but happy with the exact same thing that someone else did. But, I do not think any communication is taking place here. You need change your bad attitude. So, what is to be done. Impasses such as this can only be settled in consensus or by the administration. But, what is the issue? Right now there is nothing much to settle. This is mainly just words and feelings. I suppose I will go on writing and you will go on copy-editing my writing. I am sure by this time the admin is aware of this conflict. So, it is, so to speak, already in their hands. I think we've said everything here. I'm mainly interested in content. It appears I will have to go over the whole article. When it gets down to specifics I cannot say we are entirely in disagreement. We have each accepted a lot of changes by the other. I think it is time to just let the admin decide whether this merits intervention or constitutes edit warring or what. I got really nothing further I want to say to you. As to your last deletion you finally decided to be fully frank and open. I appreciate that. It is a question of relevant content. I think on that one I see your point. Parking is less relevant. So, I'm letting it go. I suggest you go on with what you really think. I'll be going on with that section at some point. We need to get the reader to the gate of the monastery itself. It may be some time before I get back to this non-discussion, if ever. We're sticking to the edits now.Botteville (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically someone could just remove "Heritage culture" as no one is responding to the call for refs. I would hate to see that happen yet as it is good writing on a topic that needs a place here. The only thing is, it is too good for us here. We aren't allowed to write that good. We call it essay-style, a forbidden style. I checked for possible plagiarism and did not find any. There is ref material on the 4 aspects of Shaolin culture. Probably there should be a subsection on each aspect. I would wait, though, as some of them might be covered earlier in the article. Also, the distinction between native culture and international culture is not being adhered to even though there are sections on both. In view of its potential, I say, let's not delete it yet. Give someone further chance to develop its potential.Botteville (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (AD 645) by

I became suspicious of this when I could not find it in the reference, Shahar page 9. I searched through Shahar and could not find it anywhere. I did a general search on Google of the entire first sentence down to Xiaowan. Much to my surprise this sentence is very well copied on a large number of Internet sites. But, they might have copied us. So I searched the books. I did find it on Page 122 of Akhtar Malik's 2007 "A Survey of Buddhist Temple and Mountains" but not in any other book. Unfortunately this is only a snippet view of the searched sentence. It needs verification. So, I did not resort to any of WP's more severe tags. As much of this section and the intro uses paraphrases, it seemed to me someone might have meant to paraphrase and got the source wrong. What I lack is the context in the copied source. Anyone got a copy? I guess we might check WP Library also. I leave this up to you. If you can verify that this is NOT a Copyright vio, go ahead, put it back. I will leave the logical space open, but I don't think it is clear either that Dosen said that or what he could have meant. He is only one source on the foundation, and they do not all agree.Botteville (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the community consensus? I find such tags off-putting to the lay reader wanting knowledge about a particular topic. I am no expert on this topic and question whether the tag is appropriate. Amuseclio (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio[reply]

I proofread it a while back, but it didn't strike me as being written like an advertisement very much. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerrick Staley: Why does the article include this cleanup tag? Jarble (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]