The place to discuss. I like the idea of being bold, but am more of a "Be Mild" kind of person. On the other hand, I have been known to give others some degree of heartburn. I do strive to reach consensus but don't apologize for my opinions - and why should anyone? We all have them, afterall, I don't see mine as less than anyone else's - now, working to drop all discrimination and beliefs is a whole other discussion, isn't it?

I am looking for editors to come to my sandbox at User:Mind meal/Sandbox26 to collaborate on creating a first-class article on Zen Buddhism in the United States. Interested parties can contact me on my talk page. I would like to see a group of research-oriented editors come aboard. I think it may work best if various editors focus on one particular dimension of Zen in America (always backed by references) and we can add various sections, come up with section titles, and eventually bring the article to "completion." While this is a labor of love for me, I fear it will take eons to get the article right alone. With the help of other editors, however, we can make progress much faster. Please contact me before starting to edit my sandbox. I want to know the members I am working with before doing so. While we have had our differences on the Thich Nhat Hanh article, I know you to be a good editor. Thank you. (Mind meal (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your comments - and I do recognize that you are doing a lot to develop articles and that's a very good thing. When I first saw your contributions I thought you were one of the folks doing mostly the "fun" stuff like making templates, rules, and pictures. I've been proven wrong, and I'm happy about that. Looks like we're both a little feisty. ;-)

I don't have a lot of time to devote to all this, though. I'll be going back to school soon and work keeps me very busy. I will dabble from time to time. My interest is in re-working the Mindfulness article and branching it off into a better article about Right Mindfulness and allowing the secular uses of the term to develop their own group of articles.

Good luck on your efforts - I'll enjoy reading them. Nightngle (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it out if you like. Remove photos and content however you see fit. Caitriona Reed is relevant to the Nhat Hanh article and detracted from it in no way. Your removal of her link made no sense, and so I think you are trying to own the article. Every time I've edited Nhat Hanh's page I've had to pass the "Nightngle test." Open your hand up some and let it go. Articles here are impermanent. When you are gone, someone will wipe it all away. (Mind meal (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You might want to look in that same mirror about your own desire to be right. I don't apologize for standing up for myself, nor do I apologize for being knowledgeable about the article and wanting it to be stable. It's not my work reflected in the TNH article, but his own. So, no, what is important will not be wiped away.Nightngle (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Plum Village book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are too many links. Most of them add nothing relevant. "Watchfulness, Prayer and Confession"? "THE NEPTIC AND HESYCHASTIC CHARACTER OF ORTHODOX ATHONITE MONASTICISM "? Totally irrelevant. The only reason I didn't remove them was because they've been there so long I figured somehow someone thinks they're relevant. It seems like you are attempting to control this page in such a way as to place undue weight on your own religious conception of what mindfulness is or should be. I am not a spammer. The resource I linked to, while my own work, does nothing to promote either myself or any business interest I may have; I wrote it for the specific purpose of offering the information that I teach to my patients to a greater number of people. There is no other information on the Mindfulness page or any of its linked resources which provides the reader with concise, scientifically informed rationale and instructions for practicing mindfulness, so I tried to provide it to them using a link to the resource I created for that purpose. My qualification is that I am recognized by the state of Illinois as a mental health professional and was trained in the provision of mindfulness meditation training by the current chairman of the APA's division 30. Dgodot (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you letting me know about your credentials, but the point isn't the quality or relevance of your blog post; it's about Wikipedia guidelines and standards. This isn't about my bias or desire to control this article, it's about Wikipedia rules. It is highly discouraged for people to link to their own work, and it's not allowed to post original research. All that aside, my point is that it's far better to contribute to the article rather than adding to the collection of links - if you have concise, scientifically informed information about mindfulness, then it will be no problem for you to add to the article and cite your sources. I hope you understand, and I hope you contribute content of the article. Thanks, Nightngle (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a brilliant idea! Why I don't I just begin spending my time the way that you want me to spend it? Wonderful. Look, it doesn't really make any difference to me if you want to be the mindfulness nazi, you can go right ahead and exert control over whatever little thing you can find for yourself to control. The fact is that I added an external link that added value to the page and you deleted it. You can justify that any way you like, I don't have time to bicker with you. It looks like this is not the first time you've claimed a page and bent it to your will, so you can go right on doing that and hopefully it will add some kind of meaning to your life. Just don't pretend you're helping anything else. Dgodot (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness - how mindful of you. Is this an example of the results you've gotten with your class? Perhaps some further contemplation about your issue with rules would be in order. If you look just a wee bit closer, you'll find that I've hardly done any work on the mindfulness page at all, so sticking with the rules is hardly trying to bend others to my will - but, hey, if it's worked, then maybe it's my new superpower. Nightngle (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to clean up the article Pragmatic buddhism, and even after reading the dizzying discussion on the "proper" name of Nhat Hanh, I'm still unsure how to do it with Template:Cite book, which just has places for first and last names. From what I understood there, the best way would be to just do last=Hanh and first=Nhat, but could you confirm this, or correct me if I'm wrong? Unforgiven24 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're to be forgiven (sorry, couldn't resist) for being confused. Vietnamese names are actually, last name, first name, middle name. "Thich" is a Buddhist monk/nun's last name. "Nhat Hanh" is his first and middle name. The discussion got rousing a while back because of a misperception that "Thich" meant "venerable" or that it would be an equivalent to "reverend" or that kind of thing. The feeling was that using religious designations is not NPOV. I've seen publishers use "Hanh" as a last name, but that is inaccurate. I'm not sure what the answer is since the only thing that will look right and be understandable is "Nhat Hanh". "Thich, Nhat" would, however, be accurate. Nightngle (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nightingale, I have recently received the 5MT here in the UK and am sitting with a sangha of the Community of Interbeing. There is no WP article for them (us) and I wondered about creating one. Most of the material would come from the CoI website anyway I suppose, and if there was a page which had links to it and other national group that might be enough. Your thoughts would be welcome. Thanks Frank 'bright awakening of the heart' Frank Walsh (1962) (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a photograph of three VN military chaplains who were in the US to attend the Army Chaplain School at Ft. Hamilton, NY, in 1967. I believe that Thích Nhất Hạnh is one of the three. How can I send you a jpg of the photo? Walter Sandell waltsand@hotmail.com Walter Sandell (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nightngle,

Yes, the problems I alluded to were not to do with the VNese government. Perhaps the discussion page was not the place to comment. However. I spent three months on retreat with TNH at Plum Village in France. I found it a pretty shocking experience. My comments refer generally to the TNH organisational governance. The monasteries are riven with internecine rivalry, power play and open prejudice. Three months, of course, is a very little time to get to know any organisation, I only saw a certain side of things, and I don't claim what I experienced was fact or offer a simple analysis for a complex situation. But to me there were clearly deep problems - deeper than I had previously observed in extended stays at other (non TNH) monasteries - a lot of unaddressed anger from the nuns, the retreatants and the highter echelons; a lot of unacknowledged mental health issues top to bottom being swept under the rug and medicated with "deeper practice".

There was much open discussion among senior monastics of whether TNH was in fact "The Buddha" himself (in the narrowest human sense), which TNH never publicly refuted. He is treated as unassailable and infallible and therefore there is no real process of accountability and transparent governance across their multi-million dollar trans-national organisation. All this might be their business to work through etc, however TNH is not long for this world, it is said, certainly as a functional head of the order. He is frail. What happens then? There is much discussion. As I saw it, there are such deep rifts that it is possible the empire will split. Str Chang Kong - his alleged successor - doesn't have anywhere near the loyalty that TNH has and is not seen effectively as the Buddha in the way that he is. These are the deep problems I refer to, which I think will reach a head in the next few years. Only a problem, I suppose, if the goal is continuity of a united order and TNH's work in VN, US, France and other centres in Europe.

As I say, these are just observations. I have read no solid source who is watching the power politics unfolding. There is huge frustration that explodes occasionally but everyone seems very keen to keep it close to their chest and practice acceptance.

I imagine you have studied with TNH and / or continue to. Your experience and perspective may well be very different. If you know of any on going critical commentaries of TNH and his org, I would be interested to read them.

Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that Harris has passed away? Google news is not helping - it is listing articles published as being published in 2010 quoting Harris, but when I click on the articles, they were actually published in 2001 or 2003. I did not find any obituaries. If he is living ,there is even more reason to apply strict WP:NPOV and WP:V analysis to article claims.Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss at Talk:Bruce Harris, please. --Lexein (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged the article I created on Richard W. Fisher as needing "immediate attention" back in November, 2006, and was wondering if you could review the article to determine if if that tag is still needed over six years later. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nightngle! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]