Reference requirement

[tlee]

There are a large variety of interpretations of the Buddha's teachings on this forum, but without a reference to the original source no one can access the validity of the interpretation. This causes a problem for all of us because, instead of being a forum dedicated to Buddhism, it has become a forum dedicated to opinions.

Requiring a reference will improve us all by causing us to recall and review the teachings we have learned and correct misinterpretations automatically or through the comments of others.

Requiring a reference will shift the focus of conversations from personal opinions to the Buddhist teachings.

Requiring a reference will require frequent posters to become familiar with many teaching texts in order to maintain their place in the spotlight.

Requiring a reference will put those who have rejected Buddhist teachings in a situation where they cannot participate meaningfully in discussions.

Requiring a reference will set a standard for the quality of material on the site and attract educated and practiced Buddhists.


There has been a major increase in Buddhist texts available to everyone: online or easily found through inter library systems. Everyone should be able to meet this requirement.

What I'm suggesting is that the rules be geared towards quality discussion.

[dharmagoat]

You would have liked E-Sangha.

Please disabuse yourself of the idea that Buddhism is homogenous.

[Zhen Li]

I think providing references for doctrinal claims is a very good idea.

However, I think that we should be free to make claims that are evaluated based on their merits regardless of whether they have reference or not.

A reference is simply a strengthener of one's position, but often someone might say something guided by personal experience or simply may be expressing their own opinion. In which case, one can't provide a reference. Expressing personal opinion is fine, as long as one doesn't make a false attribution -- I think if someone claims that their opinion is the Buddha's without citation, then there is source for concern.

Also, some topics are not about doctrine, so providing references is not appropriate.

Other times, interpretation goes beyond primary source material, and one relies either upon the writings of a scholar or practitioner who has written upon that subject.

Also, E-Sangha didn't require references for every claim.

[dharmagoat]

A very reasoned response, Zhen Li.

True, E-Sangha did not require the degree of referencing that is being suggested, but it did show intolerance toward anything considered to be unconventional.

We wouldn't want Dharma Wheel to become ultraconservative... would we?

[plwk]

Samples of TOS requiring such are already in place...

Link
When quoting other people's work please provide a link (when applicable). Do not copy and paste an entire article rather, select and copy a few sentences that are appropriate to the discussion and paste them. Please respect the wishes of teachers/authors. It is policy here not to permit quotes (or the publishing of) tracts from restricted texts or the reproduction of restricted images, audio/video including web/podcasts. Any text or images which are considered Fair Use or not copyrighted may be used including articles which are freely given, providing they are used here for non-commercial purposes as this is an ad-free non commercial website.

Link
The aim of academic argument is to explore a question, a proposition or an area of knowledge and achieve reasoned mutual understanding. It is not important who "wins". What matters most is the quality of the argument itself. Please offer your opinion complete with reason and support from academic sources.

[Zhen Li]

I gave up trying to figure out the story with E-Sangha a long time ago. I never had any issues there myself.

[dharmagoat]

I gave up trying to figure out the story with E-Sangha a long time ago. I never had any issues there myself.

I didn't then, but I sure would now.

[tlee]

I did not suggest references be required for posts in order to keep people from stating their interpretation.
I suggested requiring references to limit the number of posts that have no relation to Buddhist teachings.

So if this rule was in place and you wanted to present your interpretation of a teaching, you would have to find, at minimum, a reference to a Buddhist teaching to support your opinion. You could build on this with logical arguments and even use reasoning to point out inconsistencies that question your reference's credibility as a Buddhist teaching.

The purpose of the rule is to direct the discussions towards the teachings.

"Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher' — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone." -
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#chap5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dharmagoat]

Requiring a reference will put those who have rejected Buddhist teachings in a situation where they cannot participate meaningfully in discussions.

I thought this was a bit mean.

Those who struggle to accept the teachings need all the help they can get. The teachings themselves ought to be able to survive any scrutiny they receive.

If I had been excluded from discussions here on Dharma Wheel when I was having a crisis of faith, I might now be on some other (non-Buddhist) forum denigrating this one. I am not, largely because the majority of Dharma Wheelers were willing to engage me constructively. I learned a lot about community.

[tlee]

Dharmagoat, this rule wouldn't prevent people from critically discussing teachings.

It would prevent people who have rejected the teaching from spamming the forums with their personal philosophies and opinions.

This is a Buddhist forum and I don't think it is fair or right that the posts referencing the Buddha's teachings are buried under and shot down by the opinions of a few high frequency posters.

Most Buddhists are not going to go argue against the opinions of strangers online. If we want high quality discussions about the Buddha's teachings then we need a way to limit the number of posts that have no relation to Buddhist teachings.

We need to make those that want to discuss the Buddhist teachings feel welcome.

[DGA]

spamming the forums with their personal philosophies and opinions.

This is a good goal. DW is a place where everyone is welcome to come and learn about Dharma through discussion.

Now, with reference to the ToS sections referred to above. If anyone sees violations of these, please use the "report" function in the offending post so that our moderators can respond. We don't read every post on the board, and don't catch all offenses when we do. Please help us do our jobs well by reporting problematic posts.

Thank you.

Samples of TOS requiring such are already in place...

Link
When quoting other people's work please provide a link (when applicable). Do not copy and paste an entire article rather, select and copy a few sentences that are appropriate to the discussion and paste them. Please respect the wishes of teachers/authors. It is policy here not to permit quotes (or the publishing of) tracts from restricted texts or the reproduction of restricted images, audio/video including web/podcasts. Any text or images which are considered Fair Use or not copyrighted may be used including articles which are freely given, providing they are used here for non-commercial purposes as this is an ad-free non commercial website.

Link
The aim of academic argument is to explore a question, a proposition or an area of knowledge and achieve reasoned mutual understanding. It is not important who "wins". What matters most is the quality of the argument itself. Please offer your opinion complete with reason and support from academic sources.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Dharmagoat, this rule wouldn't prevent people from critically discussing teachings.

It would prevent people who have rejected the teaching from spamming the forums with their personal philosophies and opinions.

This is a Buddhist forum and I don't think it is fair or right that the posts referencing the Buddha's teachings are buried under and shot down by the opinions of a few high frequency posters.

Most Buddhists are not going to go argue against the opinions of strangers online. If we want high quality discussions about the Buddha's teachings then we need a way to limit the number of posts that have no relation to Buddhist teachings.

We need to make those that want to discuss the Buddhist teachings feel welcome.

It's a good goal, and one we thoroughly are aiming for FYI, if someone is getting genuinely disruptive with what basically amount to anti-Buddhist polemics or similar, you can (and should) report it. You are also welcome to point out (while following the ToS of course) something like "I don't believe that is a Buddhist view on X, Y, or X, and here's why" - this can arguably be more effective than simply asking for references alone, from my perspective.

On the other hand, it's not realistic to expect everyone to quote sources for everything they write. It can also (IMO of course) contribute to a lack of internalization of the material, not being able to argue a position on it's own merits, when it comes to threads on DW. A doctrinal dispute or similar is one thing, where references are a genuine must.. but when there are things that most or all Buddhism agrees on, having sutra-quoting battles can actually lead away from discussion. Given the size and diversity of the Mahayana canon especially, it's actually pretty easy to cherry pick a few quotes and say "see this is what the Buddha said" as a way to avoid your own examination of the material. The Vegetarianism thread is (frankly) rife with this kind of thing on both sides.

So yeah, there is already a rule in place in the ToS that works contextually...expecting it from every poster, all the time, simply wouldn't work.