Talk:Hsi Lai Temple

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

Buddhism C‑class Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

http://www.hsilai.org/

I took out the line about the temple being opposed by white people and white people moving away. I'm not saying it's untrue, but I'd like to see some sort of source or at least a first-hand account. Did white people move away because of the temple? That's what the previous redaction sounds like? - Nat Kraus e 05:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did! I've found a newspaper article that confirms this. Read on.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,205%257E31703%257E2321511,00.html?search=filter

Don't delete other people's work so fast. There were people (especially the white folk) who felt it didn't belong there and it was a decade battle. It was in the Los Angeles Times. So there's your source. Whites began moving or dying out by the 1990s and there is a growing presence of Asians and Latinos in the area.

A July 25, 1993 Los Angeles Times article titled "Ex-Foes Warm Up to Temple Religion: Buddhist edifice, the largest in the Western Hemisphere, has proved to be a good neighbor in a once-hostile community" by Philip P. Pan.

Restored the information.

The problem is not the factuality of the information; it is its presentation. "Whites" is not a worthwhile cultural distinction. Using it is analogous to referring to Asians and Latinos as yellows and tans.

In addition, the demographics of Hacienda Heights belong on that community's page, not here.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the topic, in the process of cleaning up and expanding the article could move this information further down; while the political difficulties are important in the history of the temple, they certainly aren't the most important thing, as the current structure implies.

03201221 16:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Not The Largest

The largest Buddhist temple in the Western Hemisphere. The largest Buddhist in the Western Hemisphere is City of Ten Thousand Buddhas, and I will correct the info.Zachorious

Just a statement, but I've been to this temple many of times, it's really nice. =) Loocifah 02:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can verify what Zachorious said - the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas is the largest. 80 acres of developed land with over ninety buildings is bigger than 15 acres, and if one counts the undeveloped property as well, then the 488 acres of the CTTB is most definitely bigger than Hsi Lai's 15 acres. Also, according to Hsi Lai's website - Hsi Lai Temple covers 102,432 square feet [1]. Just one of CTTB's buildings is already 90,000 square feet, and there's 89 more to count. This matter should not even be disputed or be a controversy - it's quite clear, in fact. By the way, I wonder which temple Loocifah was talking about? Kungming2 03:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that I have no idea what "largest temple" is supposed to mean. Normally, in English, a "temple" is one building; so, one would think that the largest temple in the U.S. would be one very large building. However, both COTTB and Hsi Lai are complexes with multiple buildings. It's meaningless to talk about which one of them is a bigger temple. I suppose "monastery" has a bit more leeway, but it ultimately runs into the same problems. Let's not have anything in the article claiming that Hsi Lai is or isn't the biggest something; we can just say that it's "big" or "one of the biggest". That way, we won't need an editorial from 219.95.43.222 explaining why it's not important, either. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken - I shall modify all other articles pertaining to the temples in questions to just say "one of the largest". –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 23:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hsi Lai Temple. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210045635/http://www.blpusa.com/ to http://www.blpusa.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060407081235/http://www.fgs.org.tw/ to http://www.fgs.org.tw/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]