Jump to content

Talk:Buddhism and violence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Asian tribune article

The article claims the khmer rouge was buddhist. If the khmer rouge were buddhist then the BJP is made out of fanatical islamists. 

 The initial supporters and promoters of the khmer rouge were Buddhist. This is not the same as saying that the Khmer Rouge was Buddhist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.5.6 (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

In Thailand, violence is only between Malays and Thais. There is no violence between Chinese muslims in Thailand and Buddhist Thais, or between Tai muslims and buddhist Thai

this article written by a Chinese muslim notes Thailand's liberal policies towards chinese muslims, granting them citizenship and contrasts it with how intolerant Myanmar is. the thai king visited mosques and presented them with qurans[1]

The former commander in chief of the Thai military was muslim General Sonthi Boonyaratglin

The soldiers in southern Thailand are there to protect innocent Buddhists such as school teachers, children and monks from terrorism against them. Such terrorism has been observed and documented over many years. The soldiers do not initiate violence. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.110.196 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rajmaan (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Tiggerjay (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Violence in Buddhism → Violence by Buddhists – This article is about acts of certain Buddhists rather than activity taught in Buddhism PHEONIXTER 06:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Christianity and violence, modelling this article's opening line on the opening line from the corresponding christianity article ("The relationship of Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because some of its teachings advocate peace, love and compassion, whereas other teachings have been used to justify the use of violence") might be a good way to get the article off to a neutral-ish start. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support There is no single theory of just war in Buddhism. This title will accurately show that this article is a conglomeration of unrelated events. Shii (tock) 07:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are multiple sources which support war etc.. in Buddhist theories, It will take some time to apply those, at once a entire article cannot be written, it will require some time to update all of those, thus i urge th editors to rather wasting time on article name, help the article by applying cited text. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while i originally afd'd this article, I think enough evidence is present to justify an article on violence in buddhism, and i do like the name as it is now. Violence by Buddhists could include acts entirely separate from the teachings, just like "violence by christians" could include any murder committed by a so called christian for any reason whatsoever. the current name doesnt have to mean that violence is advocated formally by many buddhist sects, only that there is at least some historical pairing of buddhist teachings/culture and violence. I do think the article will be finally be NPOV when sources are found to show the actual degree to which violence is a factor in buddhism, esp. if sources have compared it to other religions accurately. at this point, the lede makes it seem like buddhism is an incredibly violent religion, absolutely on a par with christianity and islam, which is simply not true. I dont have facts to back this up, but i would say that for every citation of a passage in a buddhist text supporting violence, we would find probably 10 to 1000 similarly significant ones in christianity or islam, with a corresponding reversal for passages supporting nonviolence. just look at the old testament, which has never been formally condemned or redacted by either religion (or judaism) for its insanely murderous passages. I disagree (again, without solid facts) with Omer that there are multiple sources which support war in buddhist theories. Buddhism is at its core a nonviolent religion, more so than even christianity, and thus while the article can and should stand, its not going to ever be "see, buddhism is just as violent as every other major religion, with an equal number of dead people it is responsible for".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aum Shinrikyo

Belnova removed a section about Aum Shinrikyo, specifically the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. It was restored by an IP, and I've removed it again. I hadn't heard of Aum before, but looking over their article, it seems like a real stretch to call them a Buddhist organization. Besides being a terrorist organization, they primarily seem to be a syncretic religion, and the founders' claims suggest a stronger connection to Christianity than Buddhism. I'm also motivated by my desire to change the scope of the article to better reflect the title, as I've expressed in the section above. Interestingly, I see the IP agrees with me on that point. What do other editors think? --BDD (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The removed material didn't just include mentions of Aum Shinrikyo. It also included references to that "In recent decades, there has been Buddhist terrorism in Japan" without mentioning aum specifically; an explicit reference to Aum as a "radical-Buddhist terrorist cult"; a further explicit reference to aum as committing "buddhist terrorism"; and a reference stating that many buddhist leaders in Japan consider aum to be pseudo-Buddhism, which provides context to show that some people don't consider aum to be truly buddhist. However, the fact that some buddhist groups like to distance themselves from aum doesn't necessarily make the group any less "Buddhist." Plenty of different Christian denominations consider themselves to be the "one true church" of Christ. That doesn't mean that we take the side of one particular denomination and declare the others to not be Christian. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
However, the fact that some buddhist groups like to distance themselves from aum doesn't necessarily make the group any less "Buddhist." Yes it does, unless if Buddhism has absolutely no meaning in the Japanese context. Calling Aum "Buddhist" threatens to make any talk about Buddhism incomprehensible. Shii (tock) 07:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Calling Aum "Buddhist" threatens to make any talk about Buddhism incomprehensible. How so? Who appointed you the arbiter of what is and is not buddhism? There are already reliable sources referring to them as buddhist cited in the article. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"Who appointed you the arbiter of what is and is not buddhism?" Gee, I don't know, I've only lived here for four years, know the language, and have a B.A. in Japanese religion. Even if you want to define everything your way, words do have common meaning in a given cultural context. Buddhism in Japan refers to a specific number of preexisting sects. Not all of these are very nice sects-- see Soka Gakkai-- but there is a word for groups like Aum, and that is Shinshukyo, a separate category from Buddhism both in the popular mind and in academia.
"There are already reliable sources referring to them as buddhist cited in the article." No there aren't. Look at the three sources you gave.
1. Encyclopedia of Christianity. Not RS for this claim.
2. "Is Religion the Problem?" by an expert on religious terrorism. This is RS, but it identifies Aum as "pseudo-Buddhism", which is correct. I don't know where you get off transforming "pseudo-Buddhism" into Buddhism.
3. "Understanding terrorism in South Asia". Not RS for this claim. Shii (tock) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Number 1 is a reliable source.
Number 2 does not call Aum "pseudo-Buddhism." It states "This position—that religion is essentially innocent—is supported by many mainstream religious leaders in the faiths in which violent occurs. In these cases they do not explain away the religious motives of the violent activists, but they deny that these extreme religious groups represent the normative traditions. Most Buddhist leaders in Japan, for instance, distanced themselves from what they regarded as the pseudo- Buddhism of the Aum Shinrikyo sect." Seeing as you agree that this is a reliable source, I assume you'll have no objections to my restoring it.
Number 3 is a reliable source. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We can say source X is or is not reliable all day and not get anywhere. How about explaining why it's so? I would think the Encyclopedia of Christianity is unreliable in the first case since Aum is clearly a group influenced by both Christianity and Buddhism. As I've said before, it appears to draw more from the former. A Christian encyclopedia would have ample motive to distance Aum from Christianity. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia of christianity isn't the same thing as a christian encyclopaedia. Just because a work is about a subject doesn't mean that it sets out to defend that subject, or to talk about that subject uncritically. For example, just two pages after the reference to aum, the authors state "Christian ethicists paul Ramsey and Reinhold Hiebuhr and christian just war theorist James Turner Johnson have also, in various ways, left the door open to the use of nuclear weapons, even when their use would harm population centers." 46.7.236.155 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that two books about South Asia and Christianity are reliable for whether a group is Buddhist? I will take this straight to WP:RSN. Shii (tock) 22:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"We may have evangelical lay Buddhists making changes to this website with personal intentions, and this is disturbing. It is probably connected to this post: buddhism.about.com/b/2013/04/11/buddhist-violence-real-and-imagined.htm. Having a bachelor's degree in Japanese religion does not make someone an expert-- nor does someone claiming that s/he is a practitioner. If users are citing scholars who have doctoral degrees in Japanese religion or Religious Studies, this would be much more substantive (and hopefully less emotionally and personally motivated).
Looks to me like we may have WP:SYNTH on Wikipedia, which is a far worse problem. " If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. " Shii (tock) 00:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no synthesis involved. You just seem to be adamant that this article will be free of any mention of aum shinrikyo, regardless of any other considerations. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The article should not be making up its own assertions about violence in Buddhism. It should be using reliable sources that discuss the subject of violence in Buddhism and not "violence in religious groups -> religious groups linked to Buddhism -> therefore violence in Buddhism" which is WP:SYNTH. Shii (tock) 12:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't "making up its own assertions." Reliable sources are being used and there's no synthesis involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned about the editing taking place on this talk page. I had posted last year on this page that Ian Reader-- a scholar of Japanese religion -- provided solid evidence on how Aum followers saw themselves as Buddhist (and cited several other credible sources). These were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.76.233 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Violence in Buddhism → Buddhism and violence – The name "Buddhism and violence" suggests a broader look at buddhism's relationship with violence, and is consistent with other similar articles e.g. Christianity and violence and Islam and violence 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article criticism

Barbara O'Brien has written an article for About.com, Buddhist Violence, Real and Imagined <buddhism.about.com/b/2013/04/11/buddhist-violence-real-and-imagined.htm>, which has some very valid criticisms about this article. Helpsome (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This has already been linked to: [3] 46.7.236.155 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Barbara O'Brien is a blogger and an American Soto Zen practitioner. I do not see how points on her blog have more relevance than the sources currently on the site. Her arguments about Aum merely pit her authority to that of published scholars, and the bulk of her dismissal like that about Ketsumeidan in which the only sources she provide are herself with attributions such as, "and as far as I know" do not carry much force. What is interesting to note is that she is a practicing Buddhist of Japanese lineage, and seems to attack all sources that take critical critiques of/about Japanese Buddhism (Brian Victoria's work, Aum, Ketsumeidan). Because of this, her works comes across as apologist rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.56.112 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a criticism I might have is that the information is mostly too weighted to recent history, nothing on the Sōhei so far as I can tell, and that including Aum Shinrikyo is questionable.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how Ian Reader's articulations of Aum Shinrikyo (or that the group itself claimed itself as Buddhist) makes the evidence "questionable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.212.107 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing any specific individual so much as saying that Aum, as I understand it, is a somewhat syncretic movement that doesn't fit simply as "Buddhist." (As a syncretic movement it could deem itself Buddhist and deem itself other things too, which maybe it did) Neither the article on it, nor the category on it, are placed in a Buddhist category by the looks of it.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Myanmar

I've had to remove this section, almost all of the text was directly copied from copyrighted sources. There was a little bit that was ok, but that tended to amount to one or two sentences, and became meaningless when the rest was removed. However, to help with rewriting, the sources used were:

  • "Buddhist monk uses racism and rumours to spread hatred in Burma". The Guardian. 2013-04-18. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
  • "Myanmar govt targets 'neo-Nazi' Buddhist group". The Straits Times. 2013-04-08. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
  • "Is 'nationalism' solely to blame for Burma's latest anti-Muslim violence?". Asian Correspondent. 2013-05-30. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
  • "Massacre in Central Burma: Muslim Students Terrorized and Killed in Meiktila". Global Research. 2013-05-26. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
  • "Massacre in Central Burma: Muslim Students Terrorized and Killed in Meiktila". Global Research. 2013-05-26. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  • "Fresh communal riots in Myanmar". Bangkok Post. 2013-03-25. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
  • "Buddhist mobs spread fear among Myanmar's Muslims". Yahoo News. 2013-05-30. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
  • "Is 'nationalism' solely to blame for Burma's latest anti-Muslim violence?". Asian Correspondent. 2013-05-30. Retrieved 2013-05-30.

Bilby (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased Article

I'm a little disturbed at how deeply biased and subjective this article has been written from the very beginning, it's as if it's more an attack on Buddhism itself rather a clear and objective analysis on how some Buddhists use violence. For example, the article tries to present Burmese Buddhists as almost equivalents to the Nazis and their treatment of Jews in WW2, but is this really the case? You do know that there has been extreme instances of Muslim violence against Buddhist civilians as well, do you? Burmese-Buddhist monk Shin Thawbita was brutally assaulted and then his genitals were cut off and he was then burned alive by a Muslim mob in Meikhtila. Why doesn't the article neglect to mention this in relation to Buddhism and violence? Or at least the historical Muslim violence that drove Buddhism to extinction in modern-day regions of Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Also, according to the history, this article itself is only a few months old, and the creator of the article himself identifies as an Indian Muslim, Omer123hussain, who wrote this in the description: "created article about Buddhist terrorism, on the latest organised accrocites happened in srilanka and burma", hardly an objective overview of the topic, is likely to lean in favor of Islam over Buddhism, and less likely to create articles regarding Islamic violence against other religious minorities in Asia.

My main objection is all of the article content seems basically to be pieced together roughly and loosely, without any real or clear deeper analysis or argumentation. Just take the Tibet section, for example - does it mean to imply the evil Buddhists are just a bunch of brutal terrorists being put in their place by the innocent Communist Party? All the incidents listed here are very selectively taken, and very debatable in themselves. The first section lists a call for "Muslim extermination"; who said this, and to whom, and where and why? Furthermore, has such a genocide actually been attempted, as is implied? All these are issues I think need further background and exploration. Jared1219 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And there's another issue - this article fails to examine the instances of "violence" in relation with Buddhism in other Asian lands where it has a strong following, such as China or Korea, or even India itself, both in ancient and modern times. Have Buddhists there also shown the same kind of violence as the article purports they demonstrate in say, Burma or Tibet? Jared1219 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the article is pure WP:SYNTH, but we already tried to delete it and failed. Some people seem to think any removal of content is censorship. Shii (tock) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This article needs more critical development and cohesion. I concur on this, as so it needs more people to add to it and help it develop. However, it is not necessarily a problem of bias, but rather I feel some of the arguments on this Talk Page are bias-driven. Rohingyas were stripped of their citizenship in the 1980s, and in the last couple years they have been labeled non-citizens without rights. This process of stripping citizenship and scapegoating of a small minority (4% are Muslim in Myanmar- who are labeled as the financial wielders who will 'take over' the country) has a lot of similarities to the rhetoric against the Jews leading up to the Jewish Holocaust. There has been extensive examination of Neo-Nazi support in Myanmar by 969 supporters-- this was covered in a BBC Beyond Belief episode in August, and commented by multiple journalists (and scholars are now writing on it). The fact that this information is not integrated into the article is a problem, not the assertion of Nazism in Myanmar. My point in bringing this up is to show how there is important similarities, not biases, at work.

As this article is on Buddhism and Violence, it is not supposed to talk about the Muslim violence against Buddhists-- which is certainly present as well. Hence, I do not think the point above about failing to cite Muslim-violence here is relevant. Also, since this page focuses on episodes/examples of Buddhism and violence, it is going to be selective. In this vein, I do not understand the above point "All the incidents listed here are very selectively taken, and very debatable in themselves." All this said, -- Muslim violence did not drive "Buddhism to extinction in modern-day regions of Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh." This is a popular Buddhist-held belief that has no historical validity (see Elverskog's Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road, http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14726.html, which I believe Michael Jerryson notes in his work, "Buddhist Traditions and Violence"). This is not about censorship, but blocking concerted apologist voices from obfuscating/eliminating the chronicling of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.76.233 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 

      To even conjure up an article with this title "Buddhism and violence", wouldn't there have to be more than scarce evidence of their having any relationship to one another?  It doesn't make for interesting reading since it is so weakly founded in any historical record.

guessing the unsigned IP above is one of the Muslim users who'se helped make the page? look, there was A HUGE debate earlier, (more about other stuff thoug) i still remember, this page was named "Buddha terrorism" or something a yr ago. from, from ur edit to reza aslan's pg, the iranian-american who defends islam, i'm guessing you're a similar muslim apologist? i personally think Jesus better than both, K.O.s, i have budhist and muslim friends though in real life. not taking sides, think both buddhist + islam articles on wiki are really biased, but its not a place for expert scholars anyway. anyway, cheers, salaam. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.88.52 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Identification and Buddhist violence

"One of the core element that draws Buddhists into the social realm of violence is their identification: "I am a Buddhist," which requires the distinction between those within and outside the imagined community." ---this is of clear rhetorical format and inappropriately styled for Wikipedia. Belnova (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Belnova. I would agree that it isn't approprate, but for other reasons. Namely, a) it is too niche to belong in the lead, and b) it is really more a of a throw away comment in the source anyway. I am going to be bold and go ahead with the removal. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

]>> The violent side of Sri Lankan Buddhism(Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

Very biased article

This article violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and its Verifiability policy by having a negative bias towards Buddhism and being poorly cited.The following would being an example of bias in this article."In the 1970s, Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts (Jerryson 2011, 110)."So it's bad the Buddhists were fighting against the Communist party which had murdered innocent people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefalseprophet1 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty anti-Communist, but the lives of Communists still have value and ideally killing them should only be necessary in cases of self-defense. But anyway whether it's bad or good or mixed I think the point is that it's a Buddhist justifying violence. Possibly a bit more context for some of these things might be relevant, but if a Catholic priest justified killing Communists, as I'm sure some did, I think it would be treated as or more negatively by this site. Even if said Catholic priest was of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and knew those facing Communist persecution.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Our personal feelings matter very little, and rightly so, but if we were to try documenting every act done by every religious group, then Christianity would be at least one hundred pages long. And let's not get into Islam, which at least in modern times is even more extremist (or prone to extremist interpretation) than the former. If this page is a legitimate one, then what about "Gnosticism and violence" or "Paganism and terrorism"? Should we also endeavour to create such articles as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabsharo (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Christian terrorism is significantly longer than this article as is Christianity and violence. Category:Christianity and violence has ten sub-categories. Category:Islamic terrorism has 20 sub-categories while the Islamic terrorism article is over a 100K. Islam and violence is around 70K and Category:Islam and violence has twelve sub-cats. There is no Category:Buddhism and violence and Category:Buddhist terrorism has only one article. (Hindus and Sikhs are maybe getting somewhat "benign" treatment, although there is a Category:Hindu terrorism but more in terms of nationalism than religion. Category:Khalistan movement is also maybe listed more as nationalism than religion)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Weaseling and lack of content

The article said: There are ample doctrinal sources that provide Buddhists with a justification for violence such as the Mahayana Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Upayakaushalya Sutra, and the Kalachakra Tantra.

Ample is about my favorite weaseling word when there is no backup offered. Proper backup here would mean what experts say and which sources they point to. It should be elucidating to hear what kind of violence is meant. And I hope we will not be offered tantric texts at face value. Experts avoid that. -- Zz (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire article is "weasel words" and to an expert in the subject it is totally laughable. This article doesn't deserve to exist. Shii (tock) 22:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict with the sources about Aum Shinrikyo

Aum Shinrikyo is not Buddhist, is a syncretic new religion, it was a discussion about the reliability of the sources here before, there is a conflict with the sources about it here with the sources of his Wikipedia page, here says that the cult is based upon Buddhist ideas and scriptures, but in the sources of its wiki page says it's a syncretic belief system that incorporates facets of Christianity with idiosyncratic interpretations of Yoga, and the writings of Nostradamus. So, who is correct? Rupert loup (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

So recently I started to work on the page and provide cited information on BBS and the response has not been positive. Since you are reverting, would you like to explain how putting cited material on BBS is undue weight specifically on a page titled "Buddhism and violence"? Right now it looks like BBS is a polite tea society, and the cited material strongly indicates otherwise. Ogress smash! 04:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. Thanks for coming to the talk page. And of course I am happy to elaborate on my rationale for reverting your additions. My concern is that the article is not being developed as an encyclopedic account of the relationship between Buddhism and violence. Instead, it is being increasingly populated with examples, often detailed, of instances where those identifying/identified as Buddhist have committed acts of violence. Not all characteristics of said events are relevant here. A handful of case examples is fine, but really only those features that illustrate the connection between this religion and violent actions have a strong justification for inclusion. In short, it is exactly because the page is tilted "Buddhism and violence" and not "list of violent events involving Buddhism" that I have reverted your additions. Without that extra connection to the article topic it is just the redundant inclusion of material covered elsewhere (e.g. here and here). Does that makes sense to you? And what do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree; I'm apparently not the only one given that there is an IP editor trying to post more here as well (no, not me). BBS still is not described as the ethno-religious fascist hate group it unequivocably is; they were responsible for the 2014 riots. The section on Tibet is extremely weak; I added in the dopdop with a cite and BOOP! deleted. That section does not need cited material deleted from it, especially not about gangs in the monasteries. Ogress smash! 18:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ogress. Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately though, you haven't really engaged in this discussion in the way we need. You have described what you want to see included, but haven't engaged with why you want that material included. More specifically, your response doesn't speak to what such inclusions would add to an encyclopaedic coverage of the connection, or not, between the Buddhist religion and violence. As described above, this is what is at the heart of my undue weight concern. I would invite you to reply again along those lines. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@U3964057: "Violence in Buddhism refers to acts of violence and aggression committed by Buddhists with religious, political, and socio-cultural motivations." Modern organised hate groups strongly affiliated with Buddhism utilitising Buddhist socio-cultural political power and rhetoric to precipitate mass violence against non-Buddhists absolutely should be covered in an article about violence in Buddhism. Are you kidding? Why do I think an article about violence in Buddhism should cover violence in Buddhism? "I just don't like it" is kind of the opposite of what I'm saying, bro. Ogress smash! 01:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ogress. I happily agree that this article should cover violence in Buddhism. What I don't think the article should do is attempt to cover all aspects of all instances where violence has been connected to Buddhism, which is the implication of your language. Now presumably you don't actually think that, so what we need to do is talk about where to draw the line. Does this make sense? And do you see how you haven't thus far engaged with that issue? I have suggested at the outset that additions should be restricted to those that "illustrate the connection between this religion and violent actions". You haven't provided any sort of response to this. Are you not happy with this? If not, what alternative benchmark would you suggest? This is the why we need to talk about. I.e. why should particular material get included/excluded? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Those that 'illustrate the connection between this religion and violent actions'" means what, exactly? That's a nebulous statement. You want to separate 'Buddhists who do violence' from 'the tenets of Buddhism and violence', but the history of this page shows previous discussions on this topic have concluded that it is impossible to do so and not ideal to do so. Ogress smash! 07:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ogress. Thanks for asking for the clarification, although in your next breath you seem happy to tell me what it is that I mean. Anyway, you are sort of on the right track. My feeling is that this article should explore and explain the relationship(s) between Buddhism and violence. That doesn't have to be limited to the tenets of Buddhism, but that would be one area that I would think the coverage could be expanded. Is that clear? Again, you were close-ish.
In terms of your follow up claim that there is a consensus that for this page such an approach is "impossible", I don't see where you are getting that from. In fact, my reading of this talk page suggests the opposite. Take this move proposal for instance. There we see a suggestion that the article be renamed "violence by Buddhists" to reflect the fact that the article is lacking in analysis and is instead largely an unstructured list article (along the lines you seem to be happy with). In response we see numerous editors oppose the proposal, instead advocating for article improvement toward coherence and examination (e.g. "This would be a much more valuable article if we can discuss theology and philosophy, rather than listing incidents of violence", BDD). Do you see that theme? If not, can you let me know how you have got your alternative impression? Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Work needs to be done on systemic issues of violence, but that does not mean we should skip sections discussing systemic Buddhist violence being done right now. The article needs expansion regarding the place of violence in the teachings of the various schools of Buddhism; and yet, there is terrible, organised violence being directed at non-Buddhists by 969, BBS and other groups. We can't ignore including stuff like that. I never advocated for a list of violence; what I did was try to expand specific sections to expand on "the BBS made some protests", which is ridiculous to the point of 'why is this even on this page? why not just delete it?' And we cannot detach the practice and theory of Buddhist violence from each other; pretending theory and practice are separate is sophistry. Any theory of violence in Buddhism has to take into account Nichirenism, 969ism, BBS, Japanese temple armies, and dop-dops. Ogress smash! 02:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Ogress, you now seem happy with the attempt to explore and explain the systemic links between Buddhism and violence, which seems like a complete turn around from your position two days ago that "it is impossible to do so and not ideal to do so". Am I missing something here?
You also seem to be continue to be confused about my position. I don't think there is anything in the above that suggests that I wish to detach instances of violence related to Buddhism from any theories that explain those relationships (Frankly, I don't even know what that means). My position is simply that the topic of the article should be the latter, and consequently that any mention of the former should do so in service of an encyclopaedic coverage of that topic. You appear to disagree, but I don't know why (particularly given your recent inconsistency). You just seem to insist that all historical and contemporary violent events need to be covered in the article in detail, which does leads us toward a list style article. And yes, while I know you haven't advocated explicitly for this, this is the implication of your language here.
Maybe the best thing to do now is to try and get a bit more of an understanding about where your head is at. Can you answer me this: do you agree that the article topic is, or at least should be, the relationship between Buddhism and violence? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The title of the article is "Buddhism and violence". That does not mean we are going to avoid talking about actual, organised violence currently being perpetrated by Buddhists. Ogress smash! 08:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ogress. Thanks for the answer. That's great. And yes, I agree that there is no reason that coverage of particular instances of violence cannot be a part of this article (as I said at the outset). Moving on then, do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence? Cheers Andrew (talk)
U3964057, how many times are you going to ask the same question? Ogress smash! 04:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Ogress, if you think I have asked this before then it seems notable that you have not yet provided an answer. Anyway, I'll ask again; do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence? Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So... ad nauseum, then. Good to know. BTW I already answered this repeatedly and you are clearly obfuscating for ownership reasons as you are not listening to other editors. Ogress smash! 07:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ogress. I really don't think you have, but let's say for a second that I'm wrong; why not just answer the question again then and allow the discussion to progress? Or even just point out where you think you have repeatedly answered it in the above? Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
27 May: Me: "I never advocated for a list of violence." "The article needs expansion regarding the place of violence in the teachings of the various schools of Buddhism." And yet on 28 May, you write, "You just seem to insist that all historical and contemporary violent events need to be covered in the article in detail". Then you later write, "Maybe the best thing to do now is to try and get a bit more of an understanding about where your head is at. Can you answer me this: do you agree that the article topic is, or at least should be, the relationship between Buddhism and violence?" Me, once again: "Yes. The title of the article is 'Buddhism and violence'. That does not mean we are going to avoid talking about actual, organised violence currently being perpetrated by Buddhists." You are obfuscating and once again redirecting to what you want and misrepresenting my position repeatedly about the inclusion of appropriate material - which, incidentally, you still ignore, just repeating your spiel about 'not making a list' while ignoring my concern that your goals for what is appropriate to include is very nebulous. Now that we have thrice-over established that I'm not here to make a list, it's been two weeks. Ogress smash! 08:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ogress. We can now look at those responses and I can attempt to make clear that while you might think that you have already answered my latest question, this isn't actually the case. Most straight forwardly, this question:
Do you agree that the article topic is, or at least should be, the relationship between Buddhism and violence?
Is a different question to the current one:
Do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence?
This is easy to demonstrate as an answer 'yes' to the former does not necessitate an answer in the affirmative to the latter. I.e. you can believe that the article topic is the relationship between Buddhism and violence and simultaneously believe that the article should also aim to be a detailed journal of all instances of violence that are related to Buddhism. Do you see the difference?
As for your other point, do you also now see that none of the comments you have made thus far give a clear response to the question. To deal with the ones you pointed to in turn:
  1. "I never advocated for a list of violence." - You may believe that all instances of violence related to Buddhism should be covered in some other format.
  2. "the article needs expansion regarding the place of violence in the teachings of the various schools of Buddhism." - This does not speak to your views on the role of the article as a journal.
  3. "Yes. The title of the article is 'Buddhism and violence'. That does not mean we are going to avoid talking about actual, organised violence currently being perpetrated by Buddhists." - Again, this does not speak to your views on the role of the article as a journal.
Do you see the problem? Despite your protestations, and accusations of bad faith, you haven't answered the question; one that is intended allow the discussion to progress toward consensus. As such, I ask again, do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence? Cheers Andrew (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not a logic class, Andrew, and I was responding to your specific claims. I'm super sick of dancing to your questions. You are moving the goalposts, not demonstrating good faith, and generally being difficult. We don't reach consensus by taking an increasingly-detailed survey. It requires your input. You are providing none; you are acting as a goalkeeper in what appears to be some kind of weird ownership drama and making it more, not less, difficult to reach consensus because to date you haven't once indicated what you want. You just keep asking me to clarify my position. I have clearly responded: "The article needs expansion regarding the place of violence in the teachings of the various schools of Buddhism." "Yes. The title of the article is 'Buddhism and violence [....] That does not mean we are going to avoid talking about actual, organised violence currently being perpetrated by Buddhists." I HAVE DONE SO. STOP. I don't understand your need to act like this. That's probably because you refuse to say what your own position is. Ogress smash! 18:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

I see that a third opinion has been requested. The discussion here is too long for me to be able to offer a third opinion, but I will leave the request open for another volunteer opinion-offeror. I would suggest that moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard might permit a volunteer mediator to work with the two editors in better identifying the issue. (If you request DRN, please remove the third opinion request.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I came across this request on WP:3O much like Robert did, and I'll second his suggestion with regards to WP:DRN if communication with regards to this content dispute is running into difficulty. As far as the article content goes, I'll offer a third opinion:

I'd think a fair enough scope of what this article should contain should probably mirror what other "XXX religion and violence" articles do, to an extent-- an overview of how Buddhism views violence based on highly reliable, scholarly views and sources, along with some significant and global examples of Buddhist groups committing or endorsing violent acts as reported by RSes that don't have a reputation for state propaganda or biased reporting.

I don't really think most of the content that Ogress wishes to add poses an issue of WP:UNDUE; a lot of it talks about significant events relative to the subject matter, and as far as I know the sources are fine-- the addition of the Sri Lankan conflicts covers the fact that Buddhism is a major driving point for recent anti-Muslim sentiment in that area. The Bhutan section addition appears to focus more on Christian religious persecution rather than Buddhist violence, so I don't know if that really fits in here. However, the Japan section about Buddhist justification of wartime participation was a good addition, explaining how Buddhism and its value system was made to fit during an undoubtedly significant, violent historical event; same with the content regarding the persecution and violence committed towards the Hui; the ethnic and religious conflicts in Qinghai and Tibet are deserving of weight since Buddhism in Tibet is a factor in that. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi BlusterBlaster. Thanks for coming along and thank you for the contribution. First up, I don't think I need to discuss my apparent dispute with Ogress here. I can take that up with her at this stage. Unless of course you want to get into it. My impression at this stage though is that you would prefer not to.
Moving on to the future of the article then, I certainly agree that the "XXX religion and violence" articles are a mostly suitable model for this one. Those articles clearly attempt to provide encyclopedic description and explanation of the relationship between XXXX and violent activity. As such, in my mind it makes sense that any coverage of particular instances of violence should only be included in service of that goal. Or from a different perspective, we have numerous articles covering the detail of violent events and particular inter-ethnic conflicts would over; there is no need to provide redundant coverage here (conveniently, the fact that Ogress has copied vast swaths of content from here, word for word, makes the duplication super obvious).
With this principal in mind, I think the bulk of the edits that Ogress is advocating for are undue weight. To illustrate using examples I think it makes sense to look at her own contributions in the first instance. Some additions that do not, in their current form, contribute to our understanding of Bhuddism and violence include:
  • The fact that time magazine called BBS "Sri Lanka's most powerful Buddhist organisation".
  • The fact that on 15 June 2014 the BBS staged rallies in Aluthgama, Beruwala and Dharga Town in Kalutara District.
  • Un-analysed quotes from BBS leader Galagoda Aththe Gnanasaara
  • The un-analysed and disputed minutia of how the 2014 Sri Lanka riots began.
  • The details of the displacement of residents from Dharga Town.
  • Details of the blame casting in the aftermath of the 2014 riots.
  • Secretary-General Gnanasara's comments about Pope Francis.
  • Reporting of a meeting being disrupted at the Centre for Society and Religion in Colombo (including details of what the meeting was about).
In all honesty I feel like this list stands for itself. These are certainly important, and often very tragic, events; however, in the context of this article they seem obviously vestigial. Or to use your standards, I don't think they qualify as "significant events relative to the subject matter". Of course, I am happy to hear another perspective. What are your thoughts on the above? Cheers, and again, thanks for coming along Andrew (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
O HEY look you are replying directly to my edits at last. You know what: I agree with half those criticisms. I started by getting existing Wiki text from the BBS page. A lot of it needs to be cleaned up. Do you think maybe we could talk about those now? Ogress smash! 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ogress. If you calm down a little and take the time to look through our above conversation then I think you will find that I have been trying to talk with you about your proposed edits all along. What I have been trying to do is establish with you a shared perspective from which we can look at the appropriateness of those edits. After all, there is no use trying to reach consensus with you on the particulars if we fundamentally disagree on the principals by which those particulars should be judged. As such, I ask again, do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence? (and no, this, does not answer the question, as I have tried to explain; if that isn't clear the by all means ask me for further clarification) Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Do not mistake aggravation for "not being calm". I'm angry with you because you are completely not respecting me as another editor. "Do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence?" How about you say what you feel instead of interrogating me? Dialogue is not you asking me endless questions, it's you saying what you think and then me saying what I think. Ogress smash! 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ogress. Endless questions? I believe I have asked you a grand total of five specific ones, with the rest just indicating that I was keen to hear your views and checking to see if I was communicating effectively. Also, the premise that I have not been forthcoming with my thoughts on the article or your edits seems patently ridiculous (see here, here, here, and here). But whatever, what is it you would like to know? Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ogress and Andrew, sorry about my lack of response on this one in a couple of weeks, been busy at work of late and this issue needs a lot of careful reading on my part to respond effectively. I'm not sure if this is remaining a contentious issue between editors since I haven't a chance to check the edit history in much detail, but I can see the content discussion isn't working well here because of the somewhat circuitous discussion approach that's being taken by Andrew, no offense intended; I myself am finding it a little difficult to identify the root of his concerns based on his commentary above. I would suggest making more specific remarks on the content that was added/changed in Ogress' edits to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Discussion hasn't really continued since that point as far as I can see, but I've noticed that it's running a little hot between one another in both replies and editsums, so if this is to continue I'd definitely recommend going to WP:DRN about it and going through a content-focused, moderated discussion to make sure this can benefit the article in the long run. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: I stopped editing entirely for a while because Andrew continued to be frustratingly circuitous, as you note, while denying being so. I also have been ill. More recently, my last edit was on the 13th and had a clear edit summary; there have been a GREAT many edits since then, none of them mine. Unfortunately there seems to be no one coming to the talk page to discuss the issues out of the more recent editors. Ogress smash! 20:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, let me clarify; I more meant that discussion that had taken place in talkspace here in this thread, not in article space, had been getting hot-- I understand that you haven't edited the article in some time. In general, a lot of activity seems to be heading towards a rather dicey, slow-burn edit war. My recommendation for a DRN case filing still stands, just so we can iron some of these communicatory tangles out-- not just between you and Andrew, but other editors that have since become rather active on this article and don't seem to talk to one another except for through edit summaries, which isn't good-- but I'd say it's up to more involved disputees to decide whether or not they'd want one since it's based on voluntary participation only. I'd be willing to comment as a party if someone does end up filing a DRN, in any case. BlusterBlaster beepboop 21:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Happy to participate in any discussion, either continuing here or in a moderated discussion. I will say at this point that attributing a perceived lack of progress to me being circuitous can't be reconciled with what is above (no real offence taken BlusterBlaster, gracias). I have largely refrained from commenting on the behavior of Ogress here, preferring instead to just truck on in good faith, but her narrative seems to be getting some traction so I may have to provide a bit of a rebuttal. Again, I won't go far down this path if people don't have the appetite for it, but with a fresh pair of eyes I think that those who are interested will find that the problem here is Ogress's simultaneous combativeness and evasiveness. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If a third-opinion person comes in and says "I can see the content discussion isn't working well here because of the somewhat circuitous discussion approach that's being taken by Andrew, no offense intended; I myself am finding it a little difficult to identify the root of his concerns based on his commentary above," you don't get to turn it around and say, "her narrative seems to be getting some traction so I may have to provide a bit of a rebuttal". I didn't school BlusterBlaster; he's a big boy and he can make his own conclusions about whether or not he can understand what you are asking. I'd like to note that - as usual - your reply manages both to convey no information while simultaneously not assuming good faith in the most passive-aggressive way possible. Ogress smash! 11:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Focusing on editors instead of the actual meat of the content is going to get the article nowhere in the end, Andrew-- please don't do that. I'll further clarify my take on the matter; I wasn't basing my judgment on the ills or merits of anyone's "narrative" or to take anyone's side and say who's right or wrong; just what I read out of it myself. I found your way of explaining your issues with the edits a little roundabout; it was hard to understand your stance and thus diverted the discussion to this point where everyone is frustrated and ABFing one another, and I wanted to know if you could explain your rationale a little more clearly and specifically, that was all.
Both of you are getting really personal with your comments to one another as this goes on, and that isn't going to do anything for the article in the end. I don't want to strongarm you two into going the DRN route and I obviously can't, as ultimately it's an informal process and it's up to you whether or not you want to participate, but it seems like a DRN volunteer keeping an eye on the depersonalization of everyone's commentary might be the only way we can get the ball rolling more productively. Either way, consider what you say to another person carefully, and try to calm and depersonalize your manner of speaking to one another, please; even if you yourselves are calm, it's not reading that way from either of you at this point. BlusterBlaster beepboop 14:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, this is getting very strange. BlusterBlaster, your suggestion that I avoid commenting on other editors behavior seems a bit rich coming right after you singled out my behavior as a root cause of the slow progress toward consensus. I also can't quite fathom why you are asking me to provide "specific remarks on the content that was added/changed in Ogress' edits" right after I have provided specific remarks about the content that was added/changed in Ogress' edits. I feel like I might be being trolled. I am being accused of taking an ad hominem approach by someone who has themselves ignored my points about the article content and has instead made the issue my behavior. Not only that, but I have been explicitly trying to avoid going down that path, at the same time as receiving persistent accusations of bad faith from Ogress. If someone can reconcile all that for me I will be very impressed. But as always, happy to continue the discussion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's the thing, though. When I pointed out that there was an issue with your approach that was making it unclear to both myself and others what you wanted, I did not do it with the intent of insulting you or making your behavior the front-and-centre of this dispute-- I was as polite as possible about bringing it up, and you even said so yourself that you didn't take any offense to what I had said. I just wanted you to clarify your stance on the matter of the dispute, and while you did indeed bring up specific points about Ogress' additions afterward, the discourse got sidetracked again, even after Ogress asked you if we could continue just talking about the specifics of the edits as you had just listed your concerns with the latter, not semantics about the article topic itself, as that obviously had not worked even before I threw in my 3O response. I'm advocating against either of you commenting on one another because, with respect where it's due, I doubt either of you have it in mind to say something personal to one another that is 100% civil or conducive to the discussion at this point, however subtle or obvious it may be. It's just not going to go anywhere, and I was hoping that by mentioning I wasn't clear on your reasons for opposing the edits that you would explain it more directly-- there's nothing more to it, certainly not trolling, for heaven's sake.
I'm certainly not endorsing the behavior of anyone in this dispute. I don't agree with aspects of how Ogress approached things (I'm not sure if your editsum in the diff you provided above was to mean you thought otherwise from the outset), and I don't agree with aspects of how you approached things, either. In any case, I don't think this discussion is going to work in anyone's favor and I'm not particularly interested in continuing it myself, as my intentions are being consistently misunderstood in spite of my attempts to explain, so I'll be taking this off my watchlist in a little while. Wish a nice day to everyone involved, in any case. BlusterBlaster beepboop 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi BlusterBlaster. Your approach here still seems incredibly inconsistent. In fact, even in your most recent post there is some bold revisionism going on. The way you tell it I only I started discussing the specifics of particular proposed additions after you provided a constructive critique of my approach and made the request. That's absolutely not what happened. You provided a third opinion on the proposed edits (which was good), and then I immediately engaged with that view, agreeing with you in part but disagreeing with you also. In the course of doing so I explained why I disagreed with you, and provided specific examples from the proposed content to illustrate my view. That's the point at which you decided to describe my approach as problematic, caricaturing me as circuitous, while simultaneously ignoring my clear and specific contribution to the discussion.
In all honesty my suspicion is that both you and Ogress have found yourselves on the wrong side of a discussion, and that rather than admit this you have, quite possibly unconsciously, decided to invent an issue with my behaviour and made the discussion about that instead. With a bit of self-reflection do you both think that this might be true? Does it on some level feel like you have argued yourselves into a corner? Maybe have a fresh look at the above. You will see that I have tried hard to make my perspective clear, have offered to answer specific questions at every turn, and have simply tried to establish some common principals by which we can judge proposed additions (i.e. build consensus). This isn't the behaviour of a rouge editor. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Intro

The intro has been watered down to make it seem as if the existence of Buddhist sanctioned violence is open to dispute, but the text from this book makes it clear that existence of Buddhist violence is not open to dispute: (the link takes you to google books where you can read large sections of the book): Buddhist Warfare by Michael Jerryson... WillMall ~(P&~P) (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi WillMall ~(P&~P). I wouldn't read it that way. Instead I think that the lead suggests that the often presumed strong connection between Buddhism and peace is open to dispute. Do you see that interpretation? Anyway, it seems innocuous to me, but you could always have a crack at changing it if you are still concerned. The worst case scenario is that your change will be reverted. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Ashokavadana Massacre

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is rough consensus against the merger. AlbinoFerret 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The text has been largely duplicated from Ashokavadana; it's short enough to simply be included in Buddhism and violence rather than pointing the reader here. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support as long as the massacre is also mentioned in article on Ashokavadana and hence linked to Buddhism and violence.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Disagree. I will change my entry here slightly as I find the article on the massacre should be kept by all means, it is well referenced. The incident as such should deserve its own entry and should even be expanded. The mentioning of the massacre within present article however deserves more than a mere redirect. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very biased section of the article

"Teachings, interpretations, and practices" needed to be removed or heavily edited. First, it is incorrect to make the page on "Buddhism and violence" about general principles about Buddhism. Secondly, "Teachings, interpretations, and practices" is adopts an apologist tone throughout. It is akin to having a list of Christian examples of compassion, Jesus helping others, etc., in an article about Christianity and Violence.

For instance: "In various instances Buddhist extremists called for violence and demonized others which is against the teaching of right speech." This is a philosophical/theological position. The sentence presupposes that someone is able to criticize some Buddhists as being against "core teachings" of Buddhism (i.e., they are not Buddhist). There is no authority that can be cited to justify this stance, as there is no unified Buddhism (like that of the Roman Catholic Church for Catholicism).

I have retained most of the material and placed it after the main material that deals with violence, re-labeling it as "Doctrinal Sources against Violence." It is still heavily biased to have such a section (on sources "against" violence in a section ON violence), unless we have another section that goes over the sources that support violence. There are quite a few, as noted by Stephen Jenkins, Michael Zimmermann, Michael Jerryson, Matthew King, and many other scholars of Buddhism.

I highly recommend that someone create another section to balance this page-- and provide some representation of doctrinal sources in support of violence.

"Teachings, interpretations, and practices" needed to be removed and/or heavily edited. First, it is incorrect to make the page on "Buddhism and violence" about general principles about Buddhism-- let alone START the page with this section. Secondly, "Teachings, interpretations, and practices" adopts an apologist tone throughout. Teachings, interpretations, and practices are GENERAL terms, that would reflect ALL sides of an argument. This is not the case.

Furthermore, the inclusion of this section at any point of the page is akin to having a list of Christian examples of compassion, Jesus helping others, etc., in an article about Christianity and Violence.

Currently, the section is a collection of cherry-picked passages without context or indication of authority. Some Buddhist traditions do not acknowledge some texts, whereas others do. Some Buddhist Traditions see some texts as central to their doctrine and other texts as peripheral. There is nothing in this litany of examples.

Much more, the use of grandiose statements like Buddhist claims against hurtful speech or violence would mirror that of any global religion. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, all have general prohibitions on violence. This is not the point of this page-- to convince people of these general claims, but rather to look at the relevance of violence in Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.5.6 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have retained most of the material and placed it after the main material that deals with violence, re-labeling it as "Doctrinal Sources against Violence." It is still heavily biased to have such a section (on sources "against" violence in a section ON violence), unless we have another section that goes over the sources that support violence. There are quite a few, as noted by Stephen Jenkins, Michael Zimmermann, Michael Jerryson, Matthew King, and many other scholars of Buddhism.

I highly recommend that someone create another section to balance this page-- and provide some representation of doctrinal sources in support of violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.5.6 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

First a new section should be in the bottom so everybody can see it. Second "Teachings, interpretations, and practices" is about that, teachings, interpretations, and practices about violence in buddhism, either for or against. We dont have to represent both equally, see WP:GEVAL. And this article is not about trying to demostrate that Buddhism is violent, it's about the relation between Buddhism and violence, either be positive or negative. We have to add what the sources says and they are the "authority". If you found reliable sources about violent teachings or interpretations you are free to add them. "The sentence presupposes that someone is able to criticize some Buddhists as being against "core teachings" of Buddhism (i.e., they are not Buddhist)"... That's your interpretation not what it's written. Third this is already balancing the cherrypicking that is below, in the regional examples. They described poorly what are the causes for such violence and how exactly is related with buddhism beyond that they call themselves buddhist. And last this article is about Buddhism not Christianity, your are comparing apples with oranges and it's irrelevant. Rupert Loup (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the argument made by Rupert is unsound. "Teachings, Interpretations, and practices," is not about "Buddhism and Violence," but about Buddhist doctrinal oppositions to violence. The point is not to remove this type of information, but rather to identify/title the information correctly.

There seems to be no attempts to provide regional examples of "non-violent" demonstrations. This is indeed something that is missing and we should encourage submissions on this. However, Rupert's allegation that the examples themselves "described poorly what are the causes for such violence..." lacks substance. These regional examples have academic and media sources. The "Teachings, interpretations, and practices," has sources equivalent to Bible quotes and high-profile clergy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.134.234.106 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I said that there is cherrypicking not that the sources are not reliable. The sources described what are the causes for such violence but there are not written here. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Buddhism is a religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha, we use this source in the article "Buddhism", therefore the section should stay like now it is. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Teachings, interpretations, and practices," have also academic sources. e.g. Barbra R. Clayton who is an Associate Professor in the Religious Studies department at Mount Allison University, Ian Markham, Moriz Winternitz, John Holder who is an associate Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Christopher W. Gowans, etc. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Rupert keeps trying to maintain this page's misdirection of information. This webpage is under CRITICISM OF RELIGION and about BUDDHISM AND VIOLENCE. If there is a section devoted to "teachings, interpretations, doctrine," then it needs to supply information on violence. Not simply cherry-picked sections on peace. It makes NO sense to say that since the Encyclopadeia Britanica states Buddhism is a religion and philosophy (claim 1) that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (claim 2) that you should then decide to misrepresent the idea of "teachings" on this page. Let's be clear. (1) Half of what is under this section is centuries past the date the historical Buddha died-- so there goes your encyclopedia defense. (2) there are loads of examples of teachings that suggest or recommend violence (If you see the Buddha along the road, kill him-- may be a koan, but it suggests an area this section doesn't even scratch).

But furthermore, the critiques against Rupert's use of sources here isn't that they are "legitimate" academics, but that they do not belong here in a section that seeks to provide information on criticism of religion and on Buddhism/violence. Furthermore, if Rupert insists to keep these sources here, he must change the heading so that it does not misinform readers into thinking Buddhist teachings are wholly peaceful (since all the examples are about this right now).

That is your opnion, the sources don't state that and here we put what the sources said not our opinions. If you found something missing and you have a reliable source you can add it. However, according to WP:UNDUE we "should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
This article is not an attack page WP:ATTACK, I already explain that is about it's about the relation between Buddhism and violence, either be positive or negative, not to trying demostrate that Buddhism is violent. That's WP:POV. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

About the lead

The lead fails to adequately summarize the rest of the article's content and it's only relies in one source, which seems to be an opinion that doesn't represent the whole article. The lead should be represented in a neutral way. According to WP:LEAD it should be able to stand alone as a concise overview, right now it doesn't. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


The first section is WAY too abstract.

As it stands right now "Teachings, interpretations, and practices" is way too convoluted and needs more structure and less reliance on direct quotes. I read it twice and hardly gained any insight in the relationship between Buddhists and violence.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buddhism and violence. 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:

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) 05:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter-Strike and buddhism

Is Counter-Strike and buddhism allowed (best FPS ever)? If no, why? 23.226.128.27 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buddhism_and_violence/Archive_1&oldid=1247360666"