Talk:Stephen Batchelor (author)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time phrases[edit]

Does anyone else think that phrases like "currently residing in France" should be changed to "was residing in France in xxxx", where xxxx is to be replaced with a specific year, or some similar formation? This is quite common in Wikipedia and could easily be out of date. I would like to hear your opinion on my talk page. Kipholbeck 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard that has been decided on by the cabal of Asperger's riddled douchebags who run Wikipedia. You will NEVER be able to push that totally reasonable change through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.55 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notability[edit]

It is currently unclear whether this person is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, since no secondary sources are cited. By the notability criteria for biographies, independent reliable sources are required to make sure that the subject is notable. These sources might be, for example, significant press coverage about the person, or an independent biography.

Currently, the article only cites either primary sources (the person's own webpage), which are not independent, or self-published sources, which are not considered reliable.

Please cite independent sources in the article in order to establish notability. Otherwise the article might get deleted from Wikipedia.

For the time being, I am replacing the “importance” tag with “notability”. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vipassana[edit]

I doubt that his Tibetan teachers chose not to indorse Vipassana, considering that it is one of the importants stages on the path, together with calm abiding practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlee369 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scholar"[edit]

Batchelor could be described as a "scholar" in the sense that anyone who studies something independently that they are deeply interested in is a scholar. But he doesn't have any traditional credentials, since he did not even come close to finishing any degree in the Tibetan Gelug lineage (in fact, by geshe curriculum standards he barely began). Nor did he receive any scholarly credentials in Korea. Nor does he have any academic background from secular western academia, and he has little-to-none of the language ability that would require. To see him invariably described as a "scholar" when his unorthodox ideas have so little basis in scholarship is deeply misleading.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sylvain1972. I am removing the term scholar if no-one objects.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Batchelor's work has been discussed in many secondary sources, where he is described as an "independent scholar" or "scholar." Please, let us rely on secondary sources and not our own independent research in editing wikipedia articles. Sbelknap (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sbelknap, my reason was not independent research, but rather that none of Batchelor's historical theories seem ever to have been reviewed in scholarly literature, indicating a fringe position in research. E.g. for the article I helped edit on Ānanda, i came across a theory that Batchelor proposed that the Buddha died because of poison that was actually meant for Ānanda.[1][2] Batchelor spend quite a number of pages on the theory in his book After Buddhism, but I failed to find any scholarly response to this apparently groundbreaking new theory—hence my objections to his status as a scholar.
Above Sylvain1972 makes similar, valid arguments, none of which have been responded to. So you should first reach consensus before you change the article, since you are now arguing against the two of us.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOR. Your analysis of the literature about poisoning the Buddha and Sylvain1972's analysis of Batchelor's credentials constitute original research. Please do not base your wikipedia edits on your original research. Use secondary or tertiary sources; primary sources should be used sparingly, if at all. There are many secondary sources that state that Batchelor is a scholar. You have provided no citation that Batchelor is not a scholar. No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along wi and WP:NOTth Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in wikipedia articles. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sbelknap, could you show me any scholarly book review of any of Batchelor's works? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The scholarly book review you seek is cited in the first line of the article after the word "scholar." Sbelknap (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That cannot be considered a reliable secondary source. The author is himself not a scholar in any relevant discipline.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched the internet about the author of this article, he is not a scholar of Buddhism or religion. Batchelor has no academic credentials, I prefer to remove the word "scholar" per WP:ONUS and WP:NOT. We better avoid to give the impression that we promote this teacher. I have also spent some time reading the website of Bodhi College, I find it difficult to describe this group. The terms college and faculty appear rather promotional in this context. JimRenge (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term scholar has its problems, unless you write "self-designated scholar", which agrees more or less with the source cited in the lead which Sbelknap refers to above. Given the lack of scholarly response to Batchelor's theories (e.g. the Buddha died of poisoning, they tried to kill Ānanda, the Buddha was outlawed by some kings), i'd say he's not mainstream anyway, i.e. not taken serious by the scholarly community. Whether that's justified is another matter, but we have to follow scholarly consensus on the English Wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Batchelor has called himself "independent scholar." Som eof his theories seem out of touch with the scholarly mainstream. Yet, the importance of the man lies not in his work being scholarly or not, but in providing a non-dogmatical re-interpretation of Buddhism. In that respect, he's definitely credential; no need for puffery about being a scholar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then. Considering the consensus, I am removing two instances of the word scholar from the infobox and lead. I am keeping self-designated scholar in the body of the text, and moving the reference of Sbelknap there.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. Sbelknap (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Batchelor (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to me, buddy! Camholl (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the atheism.[edit]

I see where Batchelor's mother raised him as a humanist - does that mean he was a life-long atheist? Are Buddhists typically atheists or do they typically worship a panoply of gods, like the Hindus? Do they study and revere Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, or is he the object of their worship? If they worship the Buddha and/or gods, is it unusual to accept an atheist as a student? If he wasn't an atheist when he begin his Buddhist studies, how did Batchelor arrive at atheism? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wordreader, perhaps you can find some answers in the article faith in Buddhism, where Bachelor is also mentioned. I've helped expand this article myself, so if you've any questions remaining, try my talk page. Or else the Reference desk.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Batchelor_(author)&oldid=1205805846"