The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. What we should do with the existing content should be discussed on the article talk page, not at AfD. NW (Talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Buddhism

[edit]
Modern Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

  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]
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:

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]

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]

  • 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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More