Talk:Modern Buddhism

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

The result of the deletion discussion was keep (as opposed to delete), because the overwhelming majority preferred to redirect the page to Buddhism or to Buddhist modernism. (See also the preceding discussion here).

Hence, i now make this a disambiguation page. Please feel free to improve the wording and discuss specific links. Although i have little hope that my appeal to reason will have any effect, i urge the creator of this article, who opposes the redirect/disambiguation, to spare us the hassle of another discussion and having to call for Dispute Resolution. Please stop clinging to this article. It is obvious that "modern Buddhism" is a very ambiguous term. I have already created a section in the Buddhist modernism article to discuss Lopez' concept and will merge the remaining content of this page into Buddhist modernism, where it belongs. Please feel free, of course, to contribute to improving that article and the section i added or discuss alternative ways of structuring the content. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by Andi 3ö is blatantly false, NuclearWarfare decided as is his priviledge as an administrator to keep the article see Modern Buddhism which was not referred to in the above as a hyperlink but as a bold to prevent review--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please...frankly, i'm a bit tired by now of having to explain everything twice! The keep decision is no justification for your revert. You totally misunderstood it. It only means that we will not delete the article altogether.

The exact words while closing the AfD by User:Nuclearwarfare were: "The result was keep. What we should do with the existing content should be discussed on the article talk page, not at AfD." On his talk page he adds: "Articles for Deletion is not for deciding merges and redirects." That's why the only decision explicitely made was to not delete the page altogether, as only one of the participants in the discussion wanted to delete it while 5 wanted to make it a redirect, 2 voted for "keep" on formal grounds (like the admin) and ONLY ONE, you, Jemesouviens32, opposed the redirect.

It is a pity that User:Kotiwalo mistakenly filed an AfD thinking that we could reach a definitive decision everyone finally would abide by, but there is nevertheless no reason to not take the results of that debate seriously.

So please stop obstructing this process. Don't you see that you are completely on your own with your opinion?!? Andi 3ö (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, i just reread WP:AfD, and it seems that User:Nuclearwarfare may be mistaken himself about the purpose of an AfD: see WP:AfD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed Andi 3ö (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Per a discussion I had with Andi 3ö, I just want to make a comment or two. First off, I closed the AfD as keep merely on procedural grounds; a full explanation can be found in the above link. Also, from reading the discussion at Talk:Buddhism, it seems that there is a definite consensus to have this article as a disambiguation page, not as a separate article. Please do not edit war over that, and consider dispute resolution if you cannot come to a compromise. NW (Talk) 23:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been discussed extensively on a previous talk page following an AfD over edit warring. Andi 3ö has proposed the article as a disambiguation page ONLY in order to edit out content in the actual stand alone version, here is the Andi 3ö version[[1]] Please note that he REMOVED three references which exist in the presently protected article Modern Buddhism.

Why did he remove three published references? Perhaps because they are entitled, see my bolding:

James, Alan and James, Jacqui, Modern Buddhism, Aucana, 1989, ISBN 0-9511-7691-9

Daniel A. Metraux, The International Expansion of a Modern Buddhist Movement: The Soka Gakkai in Southeast Asia and Australia, University Press of America, 2001, ISBN-13: 9780761819042

Charles S. Prebish, and Martin Baumann, Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002, ISBN 0-520-23490-1

Ergo they all refer to a form of Modern Buddhism the author he retains Lopez also contains a reference to Modern Buddhism here it is:

Donald S. Lopez Jr, A Modern Buddhist Bible, Beacon Press Books, 2002, ISBN 0-8070-1243-2

But willingly OMITS to give the full reference only the name of the author, perhaps because of the titles lending credence to a stand alone article?

My assumption is that the references causes some form of prejudice to his personal beliefs, he is an avowed Buddhist and posts ONLY on Buddhism related pages.

As mentioned previously in the last talk page Modern Buddhism is either a state of mind, like a Christian who does not go to Sunday mass or fails to engage other prescripted forms of worship but still considers that he is such OR is a grouping of 21st century self declared Buddhists organised into a named religious movement, who are NOT judged, just referred to and referenced bibliographically, the article covers both AND gives FOUR relevant PUBLISHED references that the concept of Modern Buddhism has been worthy of publication.

I hereby request Dispute Resolution for this matter as Andi 3ö has engaged in another round of edit warring as I am writing this... Jemesouviens32 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jemesouviens32,

1. Thanks once again for the ad hominems
2. We have discussed your points (including the references) extensivley before, nobody shares your view (see the links above)
3. I have personally included the references you claim i want to hide in the appropriate redirect already more than a week ago: Buddhist modernism
4. Look at the history and then tell me who is edit warring again, please.

Andi 3ö (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....and btw. if, as you suggest, my sole intention was to get rid of the content (which is of course rather poorly written, unsourced, advances only a rather narrow WP:POV, and probably contains WP:OR), trust me, i'd simply start improving the content. The point is: it does not belong here. Andi 3ö (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andi 3ö this cannot be solved by us, dispute resolution is the only way forward, you are wrong in your assertion that nobody shares the view to keep one just has to go to the top of this page. You have an agenda because this is your THIRD edit war within Buddhism topics, tell us your beliefs about Buddhism and which school you are a part of and free yourself of your biais, again me thinks this falls a little too close to your tree, if you are emotional about this then let someone else arbitrate, but am sure that you will not be that reasonable...Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written eh, no sources, that applies to your disambiguation Andi 3ö...

If you do not accept dispute resolution by a third party I will rest my case that you have a specific agenda, do the right thing...Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J32, since when does a disambiguation page need sources? I support a redirect to Buddhist modernism myself. Emptymountains (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, you participated in the discussion regarding the AfD and the result was, keep so why dont you improve upon the existing article instead? Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was indeed to keep, but why? It wasn't to keep as a stand-alone article, as you were/are the only person advocating that. The consensus was to keep as a redirect/disambiguation page. I think that's the best way to 'improve' the article. Emptymountains (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article has already been written.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further agreed. J32, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the results of the AfD discussion and the consensus of editors here and at Talk:Buddhism. Despite the appearance of the phrase Modern Buddhism in a few book titles, I think most of us agree that its use as a proper noun is not appropriate for this subject in the encyclopedia (correct me, other editors, if I'm off). It seems to me that your efforts would be much more effective contributing to Buddhist modernism. The size of the Buddhism article is an entirely separate issue. /ninly (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original subject of this debate was whether to keep this article as a stand-alone or to make it into a redirect/disambiguation. The consensus seems to be the latter. There is one editor (see above), the creator of the article, who 1) is against the apparent consensus and 2) doubts, that there is such a consensus. Therefor your opinion would be helpful to resolve this matter (there have already been 1 1/2 edit wars (involving myself) and the page is currently protected).

As there have already been extensive discussions here and in the deletion discussion (AfD) here, the main question that needs commenting is:

• Is there a consensus? (to make this page a redirect/disambiguation and not keep it as a stand-alone)

Also, of course, feel free to add your own opinion on the underlying question of what to do with this page - preferredly, of course, while taking into account the arguments presented in the aforementioned preceding discussions. For interpreting the closing result of the AfD, please also note the comment by the closing admin NW above. Andi 3ö (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Disambiguation page. This is a no brainer. A straight redirect would be ok too. Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Consensus has been clearly reached, with one editor refusing to agree. I also agree with the consensus. User:Jemesouviens32's reliance on the result of the AfD as being in favour of his position is incorrect when one reads the closing admin's comments (i.e. the AfD was closed on procedural grounds alone, and that there is a current consensus for a disambiguation page). Singularity42 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Comment. I think a redirect is the best solution here. Having looked at both articles, it's clear the topics are one and the same. Measles (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, redirect to Buddhist modernism, where much of the content here is now covered. I don't see any point in a disambig. page. /ninly (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The RfC has been closed automatically after 30 days. Although the RfC was not all too yielding, the result is clear. There is a clear consensus to make this page a redirect/disambiguation and not keep it as a stand-alone. Andi 3ö (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid people having to repeat themselves too much, I copy here the discussions on this topic elsewhere. Peter jackson (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The line i deleted was: "Increasingly, other forms of Modern Buddhism are encroaching upon the traditional recognized mainstream branches." It is not sourced, doesn not reference a section in the article itself and instead it points to a newly created stub that imho either has to be completely rewritten or deleted. I guess what the author intended was a reference to westernized forms of Buddhism and New religuous movements. We already have a section "Buddhism today" in the article, where any such info could go before writing an entirely new article and there is also already an article Buddhism in the West. What do you think? Should Modern Buddhism be put up for deletion? Andi 3ö (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, especially as the sentence you deleted was rather value-laden in its choice of words. Although it would make the Buddhism article at least temporarily even longer, it seems that most of what's at Modern Buddhism could fit comfortably under "Buddhism today", or a subheading thereof. Of course, if that section continues to grow, it could be forked into a new and much more comprehensive article (i.e. covering what we now see in the "Buddhism today" section). Should it come to that, I also wonder if "modern" is too vague a term. /ninly (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Jemesouviens32 (talk contribs) on his talk page to join us in the discussion here. Hopefully he'll show up... Andi 3ö (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's already an article on Buddhist modernism, which is much the same thing. See also User:Peter jackson#Modern Buddhism for some interesting citations on this topic. Peter jackson (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I posted on Andis' talk page

Disagreed with your reversal of my link to Modern Buddhism as well as you suggestion that the stub be considered for deletion. Modern Buddhism encompasses beliefs not found in the original "mainstream" forms of Buddhism. Buddhism has become for many a laundry list of nice to adopt precepts while deliberately ignoring more unpalatable edicts. An example, being a vegetarian is not necessarily being a Buddhist although there exists a tangible association. Finally secterianism has also found its way into Buddhism and the reader should be informed that all labelled Buddhism is not necessarily what was originally intended...

Look forward to you comments. Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the "modern Buddhism" thing should be taken out. Maybe a line could be injected into Buddhism today mentioning this aspect, but I dont think it warrants an entire section.--Modernyoo (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JMS, your understanding of the situation is one that goes further than most scholars at least would want to go. Baumann may be an exception. 'original "mainstream" forms of Buddhism'? The only form of Buddhism that has any serious claim to being original is Theravada, & even that is approximate & disputed. The other major forms of Buddhism date from about a millennium after the Buddha, except for Nichiren, which dates from the 13th century. As Theravada is a minority of world Buddhism today, mainstream & original can't go together like that. Buddhism has been extremely varied for a very long time. Baumann is the only scholar I've come across who seems to say Modern Buddhism does anything more than add to that variety. 131.111.163.106 (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, accidentally logged out. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "fundamentalist" movement within modern Theravada that seeks to get to the earliest possible teachings, using the tools from western theory. In particular the abhidhamma is largely ignored, if not rejected. Mitsube (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter for your academic perspective, If Baumann considers Modern Buddhism relevant then maybe the article could be expanded to examine the modern perspectives of Buddhism, I will add his book in the references to the article.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, all, which term would you think appropriate for the article on newly developing non-traditional forms of buddhism? Certainly not "Modern Buddhism", right? That would be equivalent to "Buddhism today" and would have to describe (all) present forms of Buddhism. So is "Buddhist Modernism" more appropriate? or is there another term that would fit even better? I think it's pretty clear that we need only one of those articles.

I think after we have agreed on the most appropriate name for that article, we should merge the two and link to it from within the "Buddhism today" section, where we should put one or two sentences expressing what you, JMS, were intending with your addition to the intro.Andi 3ö (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Th term "Modern Buddhism" is in use by some scholars, so can't be simply rejected. It is, though, as you say, ambiguous, so perhaps it should have a disambiguation page. "Buddhist modernism" is my guess for the commonest term. "Protestant Buddhism" is also used. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue that all Buddhism practiced in the 20th and the 21th century is modern, not many Buddhist monks walking the streets in industrialized countries these days. That said, many people practice a form of Modern Buddhism often their own. Modern Buddhism has a place and should be retained. --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's still traditional Buddhism in the East, particularly in rural areas. Peter jackson (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reference Peter jackson don't know of any Buddhist clusters anywhere in the industrialized countries Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, we seem to agree that new forms of buddhism have to be covered somewhere. They are already covered in Buddhist modernism. Also "Buddhist modernism" seems 1) the most common 2) the most unambiguous choice of article name and 3) Buddhist modernism was there before Modern Buddhism. Therefore i have merged the two articles and redirected Modern Buddhism to Buddhist modernism and later, if there arises the need for an article fork of "Buddhism today" that may or may not be named "Modern Buddhism" we can make it a disambiguation page.

I hope everybody is ok with that, especially you, Jemesouviens? I guess you would like to keep the article the way it is... after all, you created it, but i think the approach i outlined here is the most reasonable one. We can certainly not keep Modern Buddhism and Buddhist modernism at the same time while covering the exact same thing. So it would be really nice of you to cooperate and not revert the merger. Maybe you find some time for improving the merged article. It definintely could need some additions and reorganization... :) Andi 3ö (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andi you have not followed the trend in this discussion group, encourage you to reread the above and you will find that there is place for Modern Buddism as a stand alone both on an academic and on a discretionary basis not to mention the logic of Modern Buddhism per se. Additionally you should have consulted and gotten support from this page prior to your merge, understand you wish to have your way but please consider that opinions that are not your own must also be weighed carefully.

Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe you should reread again. Nobody here is in favor of your view.

Ninly: "it seems that most of what's at Modern Buddhism could fit comfortably under "Buddhism today", or a subheading thereof. Of course, if that section continues to grow, it could be forked into a new and much more comprehensive article (i.e. covering what we now see in the "Buddhism today" section). Should it come to that, I also wonder if "modern" is too vague a term. "

Modernyoo: "I also think the "modern Buddhism" thing should be taken out. Maybe a line could be injected into Buddhism today mentioning this aspect, but I dont think it warrants an entire section."

Peter says the article on Modern Buddhism is pretty much the same thing as Buddhist modernism (which i agree with and is pretty obvious btw). He also says he guesses that "Buddhist Modernism" is the most common term and thinks "Modern Buddhism" is ambiguous. Ninly (see abve) also "wonder[s] if "modern" is too vague a term.

You have not stated a single argument why "Modern Buddhism" should be favored over "Buddhist Modernism", much less anything that would justify two (!!) distinct articles. I will therefor revert your revert and urge you not to escalate this thing. Apart from some possible ego-related issues (no offense, please, i'm a buddhist after all ;) i really can't see any reason why you oppose the merge. All you stated here is some support for an article on modern forms of Buddhism deviating from traditional forms. You will have that article, it is just not named "Modern Budhism", because there existed an article before that describes the same thing and has a more appropriate name... that's all! (and on top of that your term "Modern Buddhism" even is preserved by linking to the other article). So please stop this silly game before it gets ugly.Andi 3ö (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored several published scholar who disagrees with your view, Baumann, who is referred to in the article and is, by the way, a part of this discussion, furthermore the article lists THREE other published references to Modern Buddhism maybe your apple fell to close to the tree with you stating that after all you are a Buddhist your reference to 'things' getting ugly' if you really are a Buddhist then you would respect other points of view how about this one on this same page, in fact, you seem to be everything modern and little or nothing Buddhist:

"Th term "Modern Buddhism" is in use by some scholars, so can't be simply rejected. It is, though, as you say, ambiguous, so perhaps it should have a disambiguation page. "Buddhist modernism" is my guess for the commonest term. "Protestant Buddhism" is also used. (Quote from Peter Jackson, above)

Andi 3ö, you seem emotionally involved with this issue maybe you should let someone else take over from here Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget and I quote "Thanks for your reply on my talk page! I'd very much appreciate though if you could (re-)state your reasoning on talk:Buddhism as i suggested. This is not a matter we can resolve just between the two of us. Thanks, Andi 3ö (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)" Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a matter we can resolve just between the two of us." Right, that's why we discussed it here at length. There was not a single voice in support of keeping the "Modern Buddhism" artcicle. Merging the two already is a compromise or would you have liked it better to simply delete your article? At some point we simply have to move on. We cannot discuss everything over and over and over. And btw. You still haven't even stated once why you prefer the title "Modern Buddhism" over "Buddhist Modernism". Andi 3ö (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article in question for deletion (or redirecting). I encourage everyone to take part in the discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Buddhism), provided constructive arguments and civil behaviour are used, as usual. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh my...User:Jemesouviens32 and i both got blocked for 24 hours after i reported his violation of the 3 revert rule. Didn't think i was doing anything wrong since i only implemented what seemed to be the consensus here (with the exception of User:Jemesouviens32 obviously) and always stayed very polite, but i did nevertheless participate in kind of an "edit-war", which i regret. Anyway, i got unblocked again...and i hope you all will participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Buddhism

Since i promised to an admin not to post on that page until tomorrow afternoon, when my block would have regularly expired, for the time being i'll post my little summary of what i think right now here:

There are at least two questions involved here:

1. Is there a need for an article on the subject? (Before, of course, we need to know what exactly is the subject)
2. If so, What should the name of the article be?

ad 1)

• From the little information contained in the article itself and some hints given by its creator in the discussion here, the article seems to be aimed at covering newly emerging, non-traditional/modernist/westernized forms of Buddhist beliefs and practices and Buddhist New Religious Movements.
• Although it can be argued that the newest developments are in fact nothing new and Buddhism already exists in such a variety of forms that the new ones merely add to that variety, there definitely seems to be a growing number of modernist approaches to being a Buddhist that would imho justify an article on the subject in principle. There also seems to be enough academic literature to properly source such an article.
• But: There are already two articles aiming in that direction: Buddhism in the West and Buddhist modernism

ad 2)

• Altough some scholars use the term "Modern Buddhism" it is a very vague term that can easily be understood as equivalent to what the section Buddhism#Buddhism_today tries to cover, describing the status quo of present day Buddhism and covering all modern developments, not only the ones deviating from more traditional forms.
• the term "Buddhist modernism", is much more precise in that regard as it's reference to Modernism provides more of an ideological qualification (which is what we want) rather than a temporal one. It also seems to be the most common and precise term used in academia.

Therefore, taking into account all the views expressed in the previous discussion here as well as the newly expressed views on this AfD page, my conclusion is:

• merge the content of the page with Buddhist modernism (already done by full copy/paste, needs improvement!)
• make Modern Buddhism a disambiguation page with two, possibly three links:
  • Buddhism#Buddhism _today
  • Buddhist modernism
  • and possibly Buddhism in the West
• someday in the future forking out the Buddhism Today section could become necessary at wich time we should switch the first link to the new page which may or may not be called "Modern Buddhism" then itself.

This is an even better solution than merely redirecting Modern Buddhism to Buddhist modernism, which is, of course, what i first did tried to do. What do you think? Andi 3ö (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JMS asked for a reference for the survival of traditional Buddhism: Faure, Unmasking Buddhism, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, page 139. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: as a result of the deletion discussion i have now made Modern Buddhism a disambiguation page. Please feel free to make changes and discuss on Talk:Modern_Buddhism. I hope that User:Jemesouviens32 will finally quit his opposition to the redirect/disambiguation and accept the reasoning of the overwhelming majority. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After an edit war between two users, one wanting to keep the article as it is (at the time of nomination) and the other wanting it redirected to Buddhism, I decided to nominate this for deletion/redirect to ensure the decision is made based on consensus and arguments instead of edit warring. I myself am leaning towards redirect because the content of this article is largely redundant because of Buddhism#Buddhism_today. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per reason above--Notedgrant (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as the section in the primary article is better in context and this POV fork contains little content. Note that the directions to the primary article for this section lead to a timeline which may be inappropriate. I think all of the info in this article is in the primary article but if not, it could be added. Information is usually better in context and it always raises suspicions when it is removed from context as to the motivation for doing so. Drawn Some (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for reasons stated above. Further development of the Buddhist modernism article (which may later prove a better redirect target) or a fork of the "Buddhism today" section are clearer and more neutral options. /ninly (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment -There are at least two questions involved here:

1. Is there a need for an article on the subject? (Before, of course, we need to know what exactly is the subject)
2. If so, What should the name of the article be?

ad 1)

• From the little information contained in the article itself and some hints given by its creator User:Jemesouviens32 in the preceding discussion here, the article seems to be aimed at covering newly emerging, non-traditional/modernist/westernized forms of Buddhist beliefs and practices and Buddhist New Religious Movements.
• Although it can be argued that the newest developments are in fact nothing new and Buddhism already exists in such a variety of forms that the new ones merely add to that variety (which would make the distinction between "traditional" and "modern" forms appear inappropriate), there does seem to be a growing number of modernist approaches to being a Buddhist that would imho justify an article on the subject in principle. There also seems to be enough academic literature to properly source such an article.
• But: There already exist two articles aiming in the same direction: Buddhism in the West and most importantly: Buddhist modernism. Other articles like Buddhism in the United States and Buddhism in Europe also have some overlap with the subject.

ad 2)

• Altough scholars sometimes do use the term "Modern Buddhism", it is a very vague term that can easily be understood as equivalent to what the section Buddhism#Buddhism_today tries to cover, describing the status quo of present day Buddhism and covering all modern developments, not limited to those deviating from more traditional forms.
• the term "Buddhist modernism" is much more precise in that regard as it's reference to Modernism provides more of an ideological qualification/distinction (which is what we want here) rather than a temporal one. It also seems to be the the most common and precise term used in academia. Finally, the term is already applied analogously in Modernism (Roman Catholicism) and Islamic Modernism.

Andi 3ö (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect / make disambiguation page - Taking into account all the views expressed in the previous discussion on talk:Buddhism as well as the newly expressed views on this page, and for the reasons given in my comment above, my suggestion is:

• merge the content of the page with Buddhist modernism (already done before by full copy/paste, needs improvement!!)
• make Modern Buddhism a disambiguation page with two, possibly three links:
  • Buddhism#Buddhism _today
  • Buddhist modernism
  • and possibly Buddhism in the West
• someday in the future forking out the Buddhism Today section could become necessary, at which time we should switch the first link to the new page, which then may or may not be called "Modern Buddhism" itself.

This seems to be a better solution than merely redirecting to Buddhism or to Buddhist modernism, the latter of which is, by the way, what i really did tried to do; not the former as Kotiwalo mistakenly says in his introductory remarks.

Andi 3ö (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to draw a lot of unjustified attention. In three of the four references in the article, published litterature no less, one finds the articles' title Modern Buddhism, in the last reference the author addresses Modern Buddhism specifically as detailed by a contributor on the talk:buddhism page. So who are we to question if it exists as a stand alone concept?

Here they are:

• Donald S. Lopez Jr, A Modern Buddhist Bible, Beacon Press Books, 2002, ISBN 0-8070-1243-2
• James, Alan and James, Jacqui, Modern Buddhism, Aucana, 1989, ISBN 0-9511-7691-9
• Daniel A. Metraux, The International Expansion of a Modern Buddhist Movement: The Soka Gakkai in Southeast Asia and Australia, University Press of America, 2001, ISBN-13: 9780761819042
• Charles S. Prebish, and Martin Baumann, Westward Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002, ISBN 0-520-23490-1

So, one can wish to expand on the theme which is certainly encouraged but sweep the entire article under a rug some place else does not do the above authors' justice.

Keep the article as is and expand it is my vote.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that list, I see Soka Gakkai mentioned. I don't think that would count as modernism. So the scope of the article might be somewhat broader. Exactly what should it cover? Everything that isn't traditional Buddhism? Or should it cover even the surviving traditional Buddhism as well? Appropriate titles would depend on exactly what's intended to be covered. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted the first part of the title The International Expansion of a Modern Buddhist Movement

Which is the point, Soka Gakkai is perceived to be Modern Buddhism ergo the article and the publication. Is Soka Gakkai Modern Buddhism, the authors think so, who are we to question? This should be covered in the article, your shout Peter jackson--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jemesouvens32, it is very common, especially in the social sciences that the same or very similar concept is called differently by different authors. The opposite is true as well: (Very) distinct concepts are often referenced by the same name. Just because a certain term is used by some author(s), does not at all justify 1)a seperate article in WP. 2)adopting that specific author's definintion/use of the term. "Modern Buddhism", as it is defined/used by Lopez, e.g., is largely equivalent to what the majority of academia calls "Buddhist modernism". The latter term is much more unambiguous which is why it is preferable for our purposes. Lopez' term, definition and view on the subject can then very well be included and discussed in Buddhist modernism. Also a link from the disambiguation page, as i proposed, would be reasonable. Andi 3ö (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andi 3ö your quote above "...Modern Buddhism", as it is defined/used by Lopez, e.g., is largely equivalent to what the majority of academia calls "Buddhist modernism" The majority of academia? Is that your POV or can you back it up with up to four published references as in the presently discussed article. The title should stand but any researched editing is, as always, welcome...--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[here's] McMahan e.g., and [here's] a review/summary of Lopez. Compare. Then do a google scholar search for both terms and compare how both terms are used in different publications. It's pretty evident that "Modern Buddhism" is used in multiple ways, mostly in the sense of "Buddhism in the modern age/contemporary Buddhism" and "Buddhist modernism" pretty much only in the way McMahan does. If you leave the academic realm and do a google search on "Modern Buddhism" it is even more plain to see, that that term is not suitable for what you seem to intend covering in your article. Andi 3ö (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one last comment: What you seem to be totally missing is that "modern" simply is an adjective that can be applied to almost everything. By your logic of finding someone who has written about it, we should have articles on modern politics, modern medicine, modern ships, modern horse-riding, modern Christianity, modern Islam, modern whatever, but we don't. We could as well have articles on yellow flowers, yellow butterflies or yellow submarines, but we d... oh wait ;) Andi 3ö (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Andi 3ö reference above, quote, my highlights "...Modern Buddhism has much more active and visible roles for women than its more traditional predecessors and its social location has been amoung the working social classes. Lopey suggest that Modern Buddhism has developed into a kind of transnational Buddhist sect..."

Your reference supports the existence of Modern Buddhism as a stand alone. Thank you for supporting my view.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the By, I include Lopez as a reference in my article, see above... --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting rather confused. Let me see if I can clarify the concepts a bit. There is a movement called different things by different scholars:

1. Buddhist modernism: this is probably the commonest name
2. Protestant Buddhism: Obeyesekere invented this name; I'm not sure whether anyone else uses it
3. Modern Buddhism: Lopez' name
4. modernist Buddhism: Baumann gives this, but not as the only name; I haven't read enough of him to know what his preferred name is

This movement mainly operates within preexisting denominations. In addition, there are various other movements & denominations that are modern in the literal sense, such as Soka Gakkai (1930s), but which probably wouldn't fit under the heading of modernist.

Of the refs cited above, the 1st & last are scholarly works about the modernist movement. James isn't a scholarly work, but a Buddhist one. It is in fact an example of modernism. Peter jackson (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, there are various other movements & denominations that are modern in the literal sense, such as Soka Gakkai (1930s), but which probably wouldn't fit under the heading of modernist." Just to clarify and not cause any further confusion. What you are saying here, and i trust your scholarly opinion on that, is: Soka Gakkai (probably) is not "modernist". So it would not fit under Lopez' "Modern Buddhism" either, right? Because Lopez' "Modern Buddhism" is largely equivalent to, i.e. a different name for "Buddhist modernist" traditions. But it is modern in the "literal" sense, as it has been founded in the 1930s. Right? Andi 3ö (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a quick look at the 2 articles. The modernism article is mainly about Zen, I think because that's what somebody's bothered to write. The MB article has 3 paragraphs:

1. definition
2. this seems to be an attempt by the author of the article to explain the differences between MB & the variety of Buddhist traditions as summarized in the lead of Buddhism; it might count as original research, though it seems accurate enough to me
3. this has been copied from the modernism article (or vice versa)

Peter jackson (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, although the genesis and the current state of the two articles really shouldn't be all that interesting for deciding the question at hand here (they are both, of course, very incomplete, to say the least), since you brought it up: The first one, Buddhist modernism, as evidenced by the first edit summary "Material brought in from a recent edit to the D.T. Suzuki article", was apparently created by someone who had material from the D.T. Suzuki page that didn't fit in there and it hasn't developed much since then (that's why much of it, apart from the intro and "overview", is mainly about Zen). The second, Modern Buddhism, was recently created by User:Jemesouviens32 and consists completely of his own writing. In my recent attempt at merging the two after the discussion on talk:Buddhism you participated in, i copied all of the content of MB to BM to initially preserve the content and then properly fit it in, which i tried [today] while preserving as much of the copy/pasted content as i possibly could. (the parts that were not obviously redundant or inferior to existing formulations). That's why the list of "traditions/movements" (your number 3)is the same. I also added a reference to Lopez' use of the term "Modern buddhism". Andi 3ö (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Peter jackson (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andi 3ö your are jumping the gun. The Modern Buddhism article discussion is not complete, you merging of content is, once again, disruptive and counterproductive. You seem bent on destroying Modern Buddhism as a stand alone. Remember FOUR published references and the above.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ad hominem. I am not disrupting or destroying anything. The additions to Buddhist modernism are valuable anyway, and independent of our decision here. (In the unlikely case that we should decide to scrap "Buddhist modernism" in favor of "Modern Buddhism" we could still e.g. simply copy the contents of BM to MB Andi 3ö (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and btw thanks for your constructive reverting my edits at Buddhist modernism (and the one by that "suspicious IP", of course) without giving any reason. Let me help you: Instead of randomly reverting only the most recent of my edits, you should follow through with it and revert all my edits, including [this] one of course, so we return to the [original state before the start of the merge]; or do you like the [version you reverted to] better for some reason? Andi 3ö (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMO this page seeks to duplicate what already exists.Bluehotel (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Baumann's review of Lopez:

"The introduction argues that the beginning of modern Buddhism can be marked with the famous debate at Panadure (in what was then Ceylon) in 1873. Other Buddhologists, such as Richard Gombrich, have opted for the inception of "Protestant" or revival Buddhism in 1881, the year Henry Steel Olcott published his famous Buddhist Catechism and Thomas Rhys Davids founded the Pali Text Society (Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, 1988: 186). The dating, however, is of secondary importance as the change of Buddhist content and form is decisive and does give valid grounds to speak of a new variation of Buddhism. It is in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that modern, Protestant or reform Buddhism takes shape in many Asian countries."

Baumann in Rourledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 286:

"reformist, Protestant or modern Buddhism ... the emohasis on modernist Buddhist elements has become characteristic of the very vast majority of Western Buddhists."

It's clear these terms are all synonymous. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nominator's 'reasoning' that in order to adjudicate a talk page dispute over whether to keep or merge, he brought it to AfD to decide whether it should be merged or deleted. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have misunderstood me. This is clearly a afd case, one party wants it deleted/redirected and the other party wants to keep it. I didn't bring it here to decide whether it should be merged or deleted, but to decide whether it should be kept or merged/deleted. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Inappropriate use of AFD which is purely to decide whether articles should be deleted, not redirected. What the nominator is looking for is other means of dispute resolution such as RFC. Note also that the Buddhism article is too large at 138K and so should be split into sub articles such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, you really want us to discuss this AGAIN?!? We already did it twice now and each time there was only one editor, the creator of the article himself, in favor of keeping it. You say, "that the Buddhism article is too large at 138K and so should be split into sub articles such as this". I strongly encourage you to read the argumets above (again) and you will find that the article in question will not be able to absorb any content from Buddhism. The title, "Modern Buddhism", can be understood in (at least) two ways: 1)contemporary/modern age Buddhism 2)modernist/"westernized" Buddhism. It probably would be a good idea to have an article in the sense of number 1 some day, i.e. a content fork of Buddhism#Buddhism_today, but as the article Modern Buddhism stands now, that is not what it is about and (apparently) not what the creator intended it to be about. It rather contains a few lines of content in the sense of number 2, i.e. similar to the already existing article Buddhist modernism (which also has the more appropriate/precise/more common in academia/unambiguous title). Andi 3ö (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andi 3ö is relentless in wanting content poured in Buddhist Modernism Colonel Warden is absolutely right the main Buddhism page is way too big to be encyclopedically useful users would be better served to have a number of independent articles appropriately interlinked ergo, Andi 3ö keep your Buddhist Modernism page which you can improve upon significantly as per the comments posted. This page Modern Buddhism is left as is and can be improved upon with relevant content beyond its actual form.

When I wrote this article the intent was to categorize a form of Buddhism which is NOT secterian (Andi 3ö tell us about your Buddhist beliefs...) but adoptable by anybody from any culture a form of modern buddhism like the Christian who doesn't go to mass every Sunday but still feels that he is a Christian. It would be impossible to ignore, in this context, to write a neutral Wiki article other modern forms of buddhism which seem to be more controversial to the Buddhist community and from the many articles and edit warring found in most is also a platform for promotion of the varying sub groups and frankly I dont know which groups' toes I stepped on or is SEO for a particular group the ultimate goal here? If I wanted to become a buddhist (I'm not) I would pick and choose the values which better reflect me within greater Buddhism and not be pressured to go in one particular direction...--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for once again resorting to ad hominem statements instead of trying to address the actual question or replying to any of the arguments presented. Thanks also for finally getting around to answering the question, what you actually intended for the article, which was raised implicitly and explicitly multiple times. Your answer though is no surprise and it makes it even clearer that the article has to go. The perspective you present on what should be coverd in the article is a particularly narrow one, and keeping in mind the rather huge variety of modern Buddhist traditions/forms, and modernist ones btw., naming such an article "modern Buddhism" is very misleading and, frankly, quite presumptuous. I know it isn't easy to let go of an article one has created, but i really don't quite understand what is so bad about covering the developments you describe under Buddhist modernism, where they belong. Andi 3ö (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear consensus to make this page a redirect/disambiguation and not keep it as a stand-alone. Question remaining is: redirect (where?) or disambiguation? There have been multiple views on where to redirect: the original question in the deletion discussion was whether to redirect it to Buddhism, later support for a redirect to Buddhist modernism emerged. Therefore, and for the reasons laid out by myself multiple times in the preceding discussions the logical thing to do imho is to go for a disambiguation. Andi 3ö (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect currently duplicates content. Measles (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The disambig as it stands now duplicates content? Andi 3ö (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for me to prefer a disambiguation page is that "modern Buddhism" is, well, ambiguous. "Modern" is often used synonymous with "contemporary". In that sense, Buddhist modernism is only a subset of modern Buddhism. Also, "modern Buddhism" sometimes refers to all forms of Buddhist modernism, and sometimes only to a specific form/concept of buddhist modernism, i.e. the phenomenon of an international Buddhism that transcends cultural and national boundaries (Lopez' concept). Some also apparently use "modern Buddhism" as synonymous with Buddhism in the west (see e.g The New Buddhism by James William Coleman). I think these differences are important and should be made clear with a disambuguation. Andi 3ö (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK i get the picture, thought it was still a question. The disambiguation page seems to clear all of this up. Measles (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rossen4 appears to be edit-warring this disambiguation page by making unexplained changes and adding detail unnecessary to a disambiguation page. Rather than myself go past the 3RR line in the sand, I am opening up this discussion page in the hopes that Rossen4 will discuss why they are making these changes.

If Rossen4 is not willing to discuss their bold, challenged changes, I believe it will be proper to return the page to the status quo. Singularity42 (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rossen4 has now explained the edit on their talkpage: [2]. I now understand the edit and have no issue with it. Singularity42 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]