" 
 ==Note to Editors== 
 Welcome to those who are interested in the Hinayana article, especially if you are new to wikipedia. Please remember to strive for a Neutral Point of View, and that we are writing an encylopedia (see What Wikipedia is not). Please read the archives above, as there are many issues which have been covered in some manner or another.  

 This article tends to swing from an anti-mahayana to a pro-mahayana stance.  However we are attempting to find a fair NPOV for the article, which remains informative and encyclopaedic. If you wish to help, please do more than to criticise the current copy.  Show good reasons, cite sources, and provide evidence - this way your arguments can be accomodated into the article. () 

 ==Readability== 
 In general, this article is just not readable for someone who has no clue about Hinayana, please stay on topic.    

 :Hopefully the new introduction should help this. Of course, the subject is quite technical, so it will never be completely readable to all. This is not atypical of Wikipedia - I invite you to have a look at the somewhat technical article on Manifolds. Regarding staying on topic - the article reasonably depends upon the definitions of Sravaka,Pratyeka, and Samyaksam Buddhahood - the articles for which are yet to be written. For the time being it seems best to keep the explanatory section. There are varying views on whether or not such an approach is correct - I leave such discussions to those higher powers. 

 :I am still looking for guidance on extended quotations.  Certainly the latter half of the article consists primarily of quotes. ( ) 

 ==I'm Back== 
 Well, I've been away.  When 20040302 start to add section on top of my edit, I was quite sure he was going to change article back to his Tibetan (Hinayana was never projetive) line eventually.  I came back and that pretty much seems to be the case.  Distinction of Tibetan Vijrayana and Chinese(Oriental)Mahayanan is gone, obviously on this person's belif that Mahayanan tradition undestood by Tibetan is the correct one.  I will again make it clear that Hinayana being projetive is a Tibetan viewpoint in accordance with this site policy to promote correct ""attribution"" of view.  One can certainly express ""Tibetan"" interpretation of the term as long as it is attributed as such.  Just don't try to censor other interpretation or for that matter try to present one view point (Tibetan)as the representation of entire category of philosopy (Mahayana) 

 :Welcome back. It also appears that you have still not read this article, and you still cannot spell. I suspect your purpose here is merely to cause an argument. I will not engage in a fruitless battle. And if you do wish to positively contribute, show some respect please. The article as it stands mentions every point of view that is currently available. It quotes from the Theravada, the Indian Mahayana, extensively from Mahayana sutras, from both the Asanga and the Nagarjuna branches of Mahayana, and it has been read by many scholars from both oriental and asian backgrounds and studies who did not see a need to make any major adjustments. Just what is your problem?  If you wish to write an alternative article do so at Talk:Hinayana/Article Sandbox, so we can discuss them in a sensible manner. If you are looking for a fight, I recommend you go over to Atheism or some other page. Moreover, I have not made a significant change to the article since 22 Sep 2004 - there has been nothing particularly slanted or devious in my intentions or direction. I hope that you can respect that. ( ) 

 ::Hello, FWBOarticle, welcome back.  20040302, I wanted to say that when I read your first few lines above, I heard them in my head with a tone of sharp but good-natured wit.  I hope that was your intention.  I hope you guys can both keep in cool. -   

  
 :Okay - I guess I felt a bit defensive, and I apologise, FWBOarticle. Please note that I have kept in the definition of 'hina', under the 'Hinayana as a pejorative' section, which is why I wonder if you have actually read the article.  

 Just one point about the edits you made: You are claiming that the PTS states that ""Hina"" is derogatory - yet, you do not cite from them.  I have no problem with keeping the definition of the term, yet your claim is an interpretation, or maybe just poor Engrish. 

 The other issue that I interpret from your edit is that I gather you feel the article under-repre