Talk:Pali Canon: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson
(New page: {{subpages}})
 
imported>Brian P. Long
(→‎Comments: new section)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
== Comments ==
Hey Peter--
Nice work on this article; I think it's coming along nicely. Despite having done Sanskrit for a few years (and some Pali in there too) I'm really not qualified to comment on the content of this article. I did have a few comments about style and presentation.
1. I think it would be helpful to have a footnote expanding on the "three approaches" in the 'Authorship and Date' section-- just giving the names of some major scholars and works. A statement in the body of the text about which approach-- if any-- prevails would be helpful as well. (There are a few other points where you refer to unnamed scholars; I think it would be helpful to flesh these references out.)
2. There are a few points where you refer to things a bit too allusively for the general reader. I think the 'Canon' section could use some clarification to explain why these different canonical lists are important, or what importance each is accorded. As it is, you just jump in with a list of the different lists of canonical works. Similarly, the 'Role' section is interesting, but is also a bit compressed.
Hope this helps! I look forward to reading more. [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 20:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:24, 5 September 2011

This article is developed but not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
Timelines [?]
Addendum [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Religion, Literature and History [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  India
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  British English

Comments

Hey Peter--

Nice work on this article; I think it's coming along nicely. Despite having done Sanskrit for a few years (and some Pali in there too) I'm really not qualified to comment on the content of this article. I did have a few comments about style and presentation.

1. I think it would be helpful to have a footnote expanding on the "three approaches" in the 'Authorship and Date' section-- just giving the names of some major scholars and works. A statement in the body of the text about which approach-- if any-- prevails would be helpful as well. (There are a few other points where you refer to unnamed scholars; I think it would be helpful to flesh these references out.)

2. There are a few points where you refer to things a bit too allusively for the general reader. I think the 'Canon' section could use some clarification to explain why these different canonical lists are important, or what importance each is accorded. As it is, you just jump in with a list of the different lists of canonical works. Similarly, the 'Role' section is interesting, but is also a bit compressed.

Hope this helps! I look forward to reading more. Brian P. Long 20:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Pali_Canon&oldid=824364"