Wikivinaya:Distinguishing origins of rules
From Wikivinaya
This page is for trying to get some feedback and ideas, and to reach some agreement or standard for the future. You can also always click on the 'discussion' tab to start a discussion about any page of WikiVinaya.
When editing or adding to the WikiVinaya, I think that an effort should be made not to mix the original 'Vinaya of the Buddha' with later interpretations, scriptures and practices. This may be done by dividing the articles up in different paragraphs, or splitting articles up in smaller articles, or maybe there are some other ideas also, for example the category-system (look here for example for a look at the category structure of Buddhism at Wikipedia).
I also think it is important for (eventual??) contributors to the WikiVinaya to make a habit of including references to texts in order to avoid confusion about who said what, when. This will make it easy for readers to make the distinction between the words of the Buddha and the various opinions and interpretations which are of a later origin and of a commentarial nature. The references should be sufficiently clear so that they can be verified by those who choose to do so. --Admin 11:57, 26 June 2006 (EDT)
Another possibility is to add links to commentarial comments about a rule under the heading commentarial comments or something like that. Every rule could have it's own category, which consists of pages on the actual rule, commentaries, 'kor wat'-stuf, etcetera. All contained in it's own page for clarity.--58.147.39.227 22:30, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
