Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist terrorism

Buddhist terrorism

Buddhist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete This is a subject derived as a conclusion from several isolated incidents listed to support a personal point of view. Most of these case seems to have other factors contributing, such as political, racial, geographical, etc hence no reliable sources are given to provide a conclusive link between these incident and the existence of Buddhist terrorism. The details of the incidents should be transfered to their own articles where other circumstance that effect them could be added with proper references.Cossde (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Simply because there is nothing called Buddhist terrorism in the world. And also there are no Buddhist terrorist groups in the world. There should be a thing called Buddhist terrorism in the world to create such an article. Acts of some individual Buddhists or Buddhist monks can not be called terrorism. Buddhists never used violence to promote their philosophy. So this article does not have the potential to become a good and neutral article. Everyone should remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and it is not a Blog. These kind of baseless articles reduce the value and quality of Wikipedia. Thank you. --Shehanw (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Oh please, personal point of view? Original research? Rather than saying that I'd hope you can point out what exactly constitutes as such in the said article. It's funny how many people in the West (even people in the New Atheism movement such as Sam Harris) goes out of their ways to bash the Abraham religions, but often gives undeserved credit to Eastern religions such as Buddhism. Every single religion has its fundamentalist and extremist elements. IT IS A FACT that there have been bloodshed where those involved were Buddhists, we simply need to go dig up more sources to support such arguments. Rather than deletion, I recommend we all come together and help this page grow. If this page is deleted, then how are we ever going to be able to find sources in support of it? Deletion sounds a lot like censorship at this point. Children of the dragon (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, keep wikiformatting to a minimum in your comments. Kindly have a look at WP:TPG#YES.--Chanaka L (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you guys who vehemently try to delete this article tend to be mostly Buddhists (my personal observation). BTW I just had to add the FACT tags in your comments above, Shehanw, they sound like pretty solid claim, do you care to cite them? Nevertheless that is to be expected: nobody likes to see their own religions and belief systems being criticized. Here are a few points I have to raise:

1. [demolish the house while its still being built] Regardless of your stance or POV on this article, I recommend you read this one - if this article truly has no merit then it will surely not survive the eventual obliteration.

2. The Japanese cult of Aum Shinrikyo has some real serious foundations in Buddhist (and also Hindu teachings). This cult still exist today.

3. The Chinese government has also accused the Dalai Lama (and the Tibetan Gov't in Exile) of systematically causing the riots that happened in 2008. Whether this is true or not the allegation exist, and the Dalai Lama's rebuke also exist. So this alone is also a significant point.

Children of the dragon (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if I may add. If you are a Buddhist practitioner yourself, most likely you would not admit to the existence of Buddhist Terrorists. Similarity, as if you are a Christian, I doubt you'd admit the existence of Christian Terrorists. The same argument can be made if you are a Jew. I think your arguments to delete this article can almost be construed as a form of censorship for your POV. Children of the dragon (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not an issue with practicing Buddhism. To admit the existence of Buddhsit terrorism, there should be a thing called Buddhsit terrorism in the world. Can you name some Buddhist terrorists or terrorist organizations? Are there any terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda or Taliban, which are connected with Buddhism??? Because there is no Buddhist terrorism in the world, there shouldn't be an article named 'Buddhist terrorism' in the Wikipedia too. Otherwise,what is the difference between a blog and Wikipedia?--Shehanw (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Its also funny to see that the guys that create and expand this article are mostly communists and/or atheists ("my personal observation"). In reference to Children of the dragon suggestions;

1. For an article to be created/exist there should be an established basis, which has not been proven here. Wiki shouldn't be used for original research.

2. If the Japanese cult of Aum Shinrikyo is associated with terrorism it should be mentioned in its own article. What does "has some real serious" accentually mean ?

3. Chinese government has negative relations with the Dalai Lama (and the Tibetan Gov't in Exile). Hence such claims has to be verified by a reliable third party as per wiki guide lines.

There is still no conclusive data provided to prove the existence of Buddhist terrorism. Cossde (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, who has actually even read these rules before applying this AfD to this newly created article? -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Many of the same objections were used to try to delete Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, and Jewish terrorism. There are always contributing "political, racial, geographic" factors to terrorism. Is Hamas fighting for the end of what it sees as Israeli occupation? Yes, but it's also fighting for Islam. Is the Lord's Resistance Army objecting to temporal conditions of the Ugandan government? Yes, but it is also motivated by Christian beliefs. There are both secondary sources that ascribe the word to events, such as the one by Amy Zalman, who has a Ph.D in Arabic modern literature and cultural history. There are also sources about terrorism by Buddhist sects that have religious underpinnings. There would be even more sources if Shehanw did not erase references to Tamil websites claiming 'Buddhist terrorism', calling them "pro terrorist web sites". The article itself is quite new work in progress, and the subject matter is notable and promising. Splittist (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• • This web link was removed ,because it was from a Pro LTTE web site, which is blocked in Sri Lanka. Those kind of biased unreliable references should not be used in these type of situations. Unfortunately User:Splittist ( new account of blocked User:WilliamWater), does not understand the difference of two words, Tamil and LTTE. Tamils are an ethnic group in South Asia and LTTE is a banned terrorist group in 32 countries. Pro LTTE web sites do not represent the ideas of Tamil people in Sri Lanka. --Shehanw (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep if the other articles on "religious terrorism" of various kinds are kept. Of course terrorism is un-Buddhist, but it is also un-Christian and un-Islamic. Is anyone starting an article on Atheist terrorism? Why not? Or more seriously Nationalist terrorism? (There is an article on that but it needs some work, the American Revolution is not mentioned.) Wolfview (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep or Userfy - Exactly, this is what makes me glad to be atheist, and this article looks to have a good future because the concept of a religion solely based on peace resorting to terrorism is a intriguing read. ☭FryPod 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Frypod admits to being a sock of a banned user and so I believe this vote should be ignored. —Soap— 19:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - A couple of incidents does not a verifiable topic make. I think specifically the rule of WP:SYNTH applies here. Pmedema (talk)

• Delete – There isn't enough research, papers, or books on the subject. It needs further examination and exposure by scholars and experts. Basically, it needs better sources. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Move due User:ButOnMethItIs's suggestion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: This article seems more like original research to me rather than a encyclopaedic article. It also has a citation needed after most of the sentences, therefore most of the article is not referenced.--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Most of the article is referenced, the nominator of the AfD just dumped a bunch of citation needed templates on the article before nomination. I have since removed them. Splittist (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • An article of this sensitivity requires citation for anything claimed. This is an encyclopedic article, as such all data in it must have proper references to stand up to out side scrutiny when verification is need. Else there is no difference between a blog and Wikipedia. Cossde (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, so if that's the case, then we should all work together to find sources for this article. Simply deleting it may only satisfy (my personal belief here) your willingness to censor this article due to your Buddhist beliefs. I'll admit I haven't really worked on this article for a few weeks now, but isn't the whole point of Wikipedia's NPOV that everyone (regardless of your religious and/or political backgrounds) should work together to fix the issues with the articles here? I hope you'll help me (and the Wikipedia community at large) to do this. Children of the dragon (talk)

• Delete: This seems to be an article created to function as a platform for original research. The Refs given seems to be inadequate even to the extent to prove if there is actually Buddhist terrorism . Gira2be (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: This should be kept. Religions like Islam have pages with whole plethora of incidents where it is documented how Islam was used as a justification for terrorist acts (or even in some cases just people who happened to be Muslim committing such acts) All religions have their violent people and their fundamentalists. I think it would definitely be censorship if Buddhists committing such acts was not allowed to be well-documented on Wikipedia. Yes, let`s not editorialize the matter let`s just all work together to report. Your Medication —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

• Delete: I think this fails WP:EVENT per poor coverage, and furthermore two of the four current references would not meet WP:RS criteria.--Chanaka L (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: Religions like Islam or Christianity having their own Terrorism article does not mean that all other religions should have a similar article. There should be a proper reason for this article to exist. For example, incidents related to Sri Lanka have remained in the article without being properly referenced for 2 weeks. Lets get together and find suitable citations.. is not a valid excuse anymore. If that is the case, anyone would be able to create articles of their own hypothetical theories and keep them until suitable references are found. Don't confuse this for censorship. And yes, all religions have their violent people. But you have to depict how these people have manipulated the teachings of religion to support their violent activities. Otherwise every crime commited by persons would have been accounted for a religion! Astronomyinertia (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comments to shehanw above - if there are no instances of Buddhists committing terrorists acts that YOU know of, it doesn't mean they don't exist. If they truly do not exist, then this article won't survive, even if per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. Children of the dragon (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never told that I know no instances of Buddhists committing terrorist acts. In fact, you might not know that several Sinhalese people -some of them being Buddhists- have been captured in the final stages of Sri Lankan Civil War, for performing terrorist activities with LTTE - an organization proscribed by 32 countries as a terrorist organization. According to your theory, that should also be included in this artcile as Buddhist terrorism. The point that you are missing in your argument is, there exists separate forms of terrorism called Political/nationalist terrorism and Religious terrorism. You seem to have mixed up these terms. For instance, this article deals entirely with a political matter. It states that a priest has pulled down a party flag, burnt it and hoisted another flag. Besides it carries the topic Advent of "Buddhist terrorism", which suggests that Buddhist terrorism has not existed before. Disregarding the tone of the article and the pro-LTTE writer, it deals entirely with a political matter. "Advent of Buddhist Terrorism" is its writer's POV and not an established opinion. Can Wikipedia take a source like this as WP:RS? Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's debatable, but we should only use that source to verify itself. That is, G.G Ponnambalam is a reliable source for statements such as "G.G Ponnambalam calls this Buddhist terrorism". To discuss this further, please do so on the article talk page. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move: There have been some events that are accurately described as "Buddhist terrorism", but I doubt that it amounts to an encyclopedia article. What I think would be best is integrating this content into a much broader article called Buddhism and violence (similar to Christianity and violence). ButOnMethItIs (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Move – Per User:ButOnMethItIs's suggestion. She or he appears to have the best resolution to this debate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge into Criticism of Buddhism. I think the information should be kept in the encyclopedia, the only question is where? Choices are (1) its own article either named Buddhist terrorism or Buddhism and violence; or (2) within a larger, existing article such as Criticism of Buddhism. Since the amount of material is relatively small, I vote for Merge until it grows, and and content-fork is warranted. Arguments above for Deletion based on Synth or OR are not valid, because the wider WP community has repeatedly considered this issue (lists of violent acts associated with a religion) in the context of other religions, and the result is alway Keep (see the numerous existing articles such as Christianity and violence). We cannot treat Buddhism differently than other religions. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delete No substantial links have been established based on any reliable sources to the existence of Buddhist terrorism, nor has it be shown any organization or group carrying out acts of terrorism in the name of Buddhism, as it has been the case with other forms of Religious terrorism or violence. The four events in the regions seems more political and ideological than with religion at closer look. The events should be moved to their own articles rather than Criticism of Buddhism. Nitraven (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)