Talk:Monastic silence

Untitled

Moved from admin user page:

Whoa: Please review/reconsider spod!

In use template means please allow me the opportunity to build the page before you act. As per the text, the Vow of silence is utterly not the same thing as the Practice of silence. Please have some discussion before taking such drastic action! At the very least, please allow me to revert that and userfy.

OK so I have explained why I contest the redirect so it seems I should be permitted to proceed. In my experience, a lot of techies have not much background in this field. I have extensive background in this field. Monastic silence and monastic vows are two separate and distinguishable topics. But I don't want to get into a wheel war with an admin. Please advise.

While awaiting your reply, I review deletion criteria. The reason stated in comment, which is that the article is believed to be duplicate, is not listed on policy as a spod criteria. Thus, it seems that you may wish to template nfd if you don't accept the above rationale to restore or permit restoration. Please note that your silence could be interpreted as consent, but puts me in the untenable position of wheeling. Therefore, I would suggest that it would be courteous to attend to this sooner rather than later. Otherwise, any additional work I might care to do to develope the article is done under threat of another spod, and I don't think you wish that upon anyone.

Bard गीता 04:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have restored the article and moved it to User:Geofferybard/Monastic silence. That said, I believe that its topic is so close to the topic of the article Vow of silence that the information could be included in the page itself. (And the page Vow of silence has itself been nominated for merging to the main article Silence.) By the way, a YouTube video is not a good reference; see the guideline on what constitutes a reliable source.

  If you disagree with my evaluation of the article, you can seek advice at editor assistance. (Should you move the article back to article space, I don't want to be revert warring, either; I'd probably seek advice in the same place.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike I am saving now to avoid confusion due to the edit conflict hang on a second ...

Sorry my computer crashed. Well I do appreciate you getting back to me but unfortunately my carefully crafted appeal was lost during the crash. Well yeah we can seek uninvolved thir party opinion if need be but for the time being why not let the article develope for a couple few days and then see what it looks like? Believe me this is a vaaast topic and just because one English speaking wikipedian somewhere has been nominated for merger should not constitute a basis to act on Monastic silence, let alone speedy delete. It seems that your point is not wildly unsupportable - it may well be that at this point in the development of wikipedia a consolidation of these two topics might be in order. But it seems that, at minimum, proper process is to recognize that speedy delete is not the protocol. Probably wiki way here is to agree to disagree, take no action on a restoration of the page, with the understanding that if the page is restored you would have the right to nfd (nominate for deletion) at any time. The request would be perhaps that you would allow a stipulated amount of time - be it an hour, or a day, or two - but actually based upon your argument, it seems that I would be lucky to get even one hour before the nfd. I would not be offended if the arrangement is that you would nfd but at least, not spod. Fair enough?

PS: No hard feelings if I lose the nfd. IMO IMHO the merge might work on Vow of silence, for some months, before the topic gets more developed. ( And I do think you have an arguable point at this stage of wikipedia developement, not permanently.)IMO it makes for more clarity in collaborative writing to keep separate things separate. Maybe merge later but not merge for the sake of merging. The articles IMO develope much better if they are allowed to spawn and grow based upon narrowly defined concepts, which was the whole point of starting this artice.

PPS. Actually, Silence was a mess - section heading without content, two related sections separated by an off topic section. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silence&action=history I have cleaned it up but IMO it is the exact opposite of merge we need a disambig page with separate pages. I could see Vow of silence as a subsection of a broader topic such as Monastic silence but really, sir, based upon expertise, IMO, Vows of x are more appropriately a subsection of Rites and also a subsection of particular Orders. The Vow is not the master of the Practice.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this may be a textbook case of area expertise interacting with wikipedia expertise - not to say that is a bad thing. Probably the end result of this dialogue is a much better understanding of the disutility that had existed at those pages and the output should be a better final product. Awaiting your OK to proceed as outlined above. Bard गीता 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Silence on "Silence", interpreted

In light of your statement, to wit:

If you disagree with my evaluation of the article, you can seek advice at editor assistance. (Should you move the article back to article space, I don't want to be revert warring, either; I'd probably seek advice in the same place.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That is interpreted as presenting the following implicit options:

• "seek advice at editor assistance"
• move the article back to article space, in which case you would "probably seek advice in the same place.)"

Hence, my actions are as follows: I am cleaning up the article Silence, which is in pretty bad shape; I added religious cats to the already existing disambig page, made several suggestions. I will sit on all of this :until tommorow and seek your comments. Silence will be ... silence.:)Bard गीता 06:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK so its a go

I will paste the above discussion on user page. I will be offline soon but will buff everything up tommorow asap and we will be in good shape either way. Thanks. :)Bard गीता 07:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the event of collegial disputes re merger/split etc:Please read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geofferybard/Editnotice

Merger discussion please write HERE

Strong Oppose as premature and probably unwarranted. There is vowed and unvowed silence, within and without the monastic environment, practiced by laity and vowed "religious".

Perhaps this merger would eventually be in order, but it is too early to tell. It will take a few days for the page to take shape. Also, having studied monastic Christianity and Buddhism since the early eighties, I am aware that there are probably scores if not hundreds of separate sutras, commentaries and other writings on Vows, which have no mention of Silence, and vice versa. These are simply separate matters, just as the Swearing_in of police officers and Presidents is quite a different matter than the history of their term of office. But of course I assume good faith, and have no problem with an eventual merger if the content itself as it develops seems to indicate the desirability of the merger. But, the burden of proof should lie with the proponent, and any decision should take place after patient dialogue including parties who are detached and disinterested but who have some knowledge and experience with the subject matter. Bard गीता 18:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Promised self-criticism: my remarks at Vows_of_silence presume that the proposal is to merge Monastic_silence into the article Vows_of_silence. That is implicit given that this page was at one time redirected to Vows of silence, but is not a clear and necessary consequence of a merger. Question: shall we explore alternative structures of the wikpedia coverage of both Monastic and Vowed silence? Bard गीता 18:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Precedent cases: Marshall_McLuhan has not eaten The medium is the messageBard गीता 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence refuting the collapse of this topic with "Vows..."

Vows having nothing to do with silence Dalit_Buddhist_movement#22_Vows_of_Ambedkar

Some great sources for developing the article

• http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OM4ueFfoRfcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Jaworski,+A+%28ed%29+%281997%29+Silence:+Interdisciplinary+Perspectives&ots=uHU_Qp0a_H&sig=5l-JX8GZ-v63mzqqZFvzPfuBAfE#v=onepage&q=Jaworski%2C%20A%20%28ed%29%20%281997%29%20Silence%3A%20Interdisciplinary%20Perspectives&f=false

Requested administrative assistance  Done

It would be nice if an administrator might close the non-existent discussoin of a forced merger of Monastic silence which has 35 references into Vows of silence, which no one is interested in. The merger template is a nuisance and it discourages work on the article. The only person who has commented on the merger is myself, in opposition. The vows article is underdeveloped and no more relevant to the practice of monastic silence than the oath of office of cops, or the President are to the performance of their obligations. It is the tail wagging the dog to suggest that the vow to do something should become the superordinate topic and monastic silence is practiced by non-vowed laity and un-vowed monastic guests. Vowed silence occurs outside monasteries. The topics are not at all connected, they merely have some overlap.

Precedent against Mergerism:

Online compiler is not merged to Compiler nor is anyone trying to enforce that. Bard गीता 17:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you!

Ah, the blessings of silence.Geofferybard has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Cite properly

• A Time to Keep Silence

By Patrick Leigh Fermor Paperback, 112 pages NYRB Classics List price: $12.95

add

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6iXeopH8mCoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=Cftl9eJOIW&sig=cNuJKXqe1ekpSDFhD9FCs_ZjvjQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Catholic or catholic?

I would like to correct you on quoting St Theophilus fn.4 where you have "Catholic faith" with capital C. I believe it less confusing and more correct to change this to either lower case c or to use "universal faith" without capitalization. 106.68.157.159 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Zoroastrian Towers of Silence ... what does it have to do with the topic of this article?

When reading Tower of Silence I don’t see any link with this article, and so I don’t know why the (arguably awesome, true) photo of the Towers of Silence near Yazd, Iran, is present. Could somebody explain, please?

Ceplm (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been wondering about that for a long time. Sky burial has little to do with monastic silence as described in this article. I would support removing the picture. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Monastic silence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130619213851/http://zendo.co.tv/ to http://zendo.co.tv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130522081431/http://www.livingrosaries.org:80/ to http://www.livingrosaries.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist Section Removed- Sourcing and OR

The entire section on Buddhism was extensively quoting sources that are either not reliable or missing. Some of the material was also incorrect or WP:OR. Despite depiction in popular media, 'vows of silence' aren't a significant traditional part of monastic practice. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)