Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Terrorism


 * 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   Rename to Violence in Buddhism. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist Terrorism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The title of the article may be considered a neologism, with not enough citations to justify an article. content could be merged with persecution of Muslims in Burma, but my motivation in nominating is to make sure this gets eyeballs commensurate with the seriousness of the subject, and gets covered without WP:Undue Weight, and with WP:NPOV. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not the place to attract attention to an article for clean-up/improvement. Clean-up templates are for that sort of thing. The article cites two published books on the subject and, in any case, is hardly giving undue weight to the subject while being only 4 lines long!! Sionk (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment the books are not about buddhist terrorism per se (not all violence is terrorism), and there is some question of the credentials of one of the authors per the amazon reviews. I believe that unless more sources are found for the phrase "buddhist terrorism", this material should be merged to various articles on the countries and disputes. I agree this is not the forum for clean up, or renaming, but I do believe the question of this being a separate article needs to be addressed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * True, I take your point about one person's "terrorist" being another person's "freedom fighter". The title is problematic! Sionk (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The activities had grew on the international scale, which proves it as an organized level of attackes. I understand after reading multiple articles about different religious terrorism is that: A terrorist is not the one who attacks only with automatic weapons, but those can also be an organized attacks with particular target to destroy the economy, threatning to life etc.., which had been reported in the recent incidents of Maynamar and Srilanka, etc.. These incidents cannot be considered as a riots; as they have particular hatred agenda and target, to domoralize the particular community by destroying its economy and lives. As far as sources are required we all know a simple google search would provide millions of sources out of which some hundereds are reliable, but I just dont want to make the article full of reliable sources, instead i am looking for some academic reliable sources. Thus I strongly beleive that a article should be written about these organized attacs, which is obviously should have the name Buddhist Terrorism it is not that I am justifying the name with any bias, but its a reality which we all have to accept. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to 696 Movement, which is the topic discussed in the article. Borock (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We have articles on Religious terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Christian terrorism, and Jewish terrorism. Why should we not have one on Buddhist terrorism? The article definitely needs expanding and broadening, but that's no reason to delete it. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Haul the latter four of those to AFD and I will opine the same way. Religious terrorism is a different deal, that's an encyclopedic topic rather than an effort to cobble together some sort of pseudouniversal "movement" like the other four do... Carrite (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument", it's a "people engage in terrorism for many different reasons and an encyclopaedia should cover its topics as comprehensively as possible" argument. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should cover real topics, not invented, imaginary topics. Shii (tock) 04:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way is the topic invented or imaginary? 89.100.71.14 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is necessary, as the organized activities had spread particularly among the Buddhist dominant nations of south and south east Asia: Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan etc these all proves the necessity of the article. Re-naming or merging it with other articles is not so necessary because almost all the religious articles contain article about terrorism and criticism. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename 969 Movement. The problem here is an obscure and NPOV title, not a matter of notability failure. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We can start a new article about 969 movement, because "969" is limited to Maynmar, where as the activities of Buddhist terrorism/organized attacks in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan, Maynmar etc are active with different names, and a to cover these all in one specific article, with specific name Buddhist Terrorism it is necessary to keep and expand this article. I had applied some more book sources which support the Buddhist terrorism specifically in south east and south asia. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, change to 969 Movement and delete inapplicable tidbits. This is a polemic essay any other way and should be deleted outright. There is not unified, centrally directed, international "Buddhist Terrorism" movement any more than there is a "Christian Terrorism" movement or an "Islamic Terrorism" movement. It should be renamed and pared down or deleted as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * in this hackjob article Omer used as a source it claims "The Khmer Rouge, which killed millions, in Cambodia wanted a Buddhist state, with Niradoum Sihanouk as the vicegerent of God and Buddha.". The only relation between the Khmer Rouge and Buddhist monks is the number of monks that it killed. There are sources at Buddhism_in_Cambodia and I can obtain more upon request. Also, the Pattani insurgency by Malay Muslims in Thailand is only limited to Malays who want to resurrect the Pattani Sultanate. Thai and chinese muslims in thailand are not involved, and not persecuted. The thai government granted citizenship to all chinese, including muslims who fled the civil war in China and settled in Chiang Mai without concern for religion. The former commander in chief of the Thai army, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin is a muslim. Trying to categorize Malay-Thai violence as Buddhist terrorism is original research.Rajmaan (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Are there any Buddhist religious leaders, aside from the aum shinriko leader (who i dont think has any support from anyone outside his cult), who have called for terrorist acts against anyone? That makes a difference, in my mind: there are plenty of cases in some other religions of leaders repeatedly calling for terrorist acts and planned acts of violence, but i dont know of any such orders from any legitimate buddhist leader. If not, the case for such an article is made much harder. just because members of a particular group acts violently, doesnt mean the group can be described as engaging in terrorism, no matter how horrific the acts may be.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * | BBC reported on 17 February 2013, about Bodu Bala Sena in Sri lanka: There have been several attacks on both mosques and Muslim-owned businesses as well as on Christian churches and the clergy, the BBC's Charles Haviland reports from Colombo. The article was published after an interview by a Galaboda Aththe Gnanasara, Secretary general of BBS. Continue to it Charles Haviland reported that the BBS organisation maintains an unofficial police. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mangala Samaraweera, the only person cited in the article on BBS as stating that its a terrorist org, is himself a partisan political figure. I would need to see a neutral, third party observer, like an NGO or human rights watch org, state that BBS is a terrorist org, and then, we would still need more than one group to justify a whole article on the subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to 696 or 969, whichever is the real name. There is not enough information linking this to Sri Lanka or any evidence that this has anything in common with Sri Lanka. Shii (tock) 02:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 696 is limited to only Maynmar and Thailand, thus we need a general platform to cover the entire organized activities.--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Violence in Buddhism or Violence and Buddhism. Buddhist Terrorism is a bad neologism. There is a large assortment of historical encyclopedic material in that field.Rajmaan (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neologism does not apply here, almost all the world major religions have the article with this name, then why not herer? Need to understand the necessaty, by keeping emotions aside. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. You still haven't answered my concerns about your unreliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please specify the source name, I suggest if we discuss about the source on the article talk page, as this page is for other subject.:)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename to Buddhism and Violence, which covers an array of positions, "definitions of violence," and other problems beneath an acceptable umbrella. While Christianity and violence is no peach, it does provide context. Icarus of old (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on... its not a debate to discuss "Buddhism and Violence" its as simple as every major religion contains the article about terrorism. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Then don't discuss the subject, as you have done below! Do that on the article's Talk page (if it survives AfD). Sionk (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Buddhist Terrorist organizations Declared by multiple nations and Research organizations.


 * The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), (BURMA) is a declared Terrorist Organization, by National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), established in 2005 as a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence.
 * The Aum Shinrikyo (JAPAN) is a declared Terrorist organisation who along with al-qaida seeked neculear weapons. Aum, now known as Aleph, is a Japanese organization once led by Shoko Asahara. It is now listed as a terrorist organization in many countries, there core beliefs drew from Vajrayana Buddhist sources.
 * The Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) (CHINA) declared as a terrorsit organization by China. and the BBC news described the Congress as "radical but influential".
 * The Khmer_Rouge (CAMBODIA) the ideology of this radical organization was derived from Buddhism. The linked article gives the full detail with citation. The Reuters, reported on 10 March 2013, That : Im Chaem, now a Buddhist nun in her 60s, is suspected of running a forced labor camp where fellow Khmer Rouge cadres Ta An and Ta Tith oversaw massacres in the "Killing Fields" revolution of 1975-79.
 * The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) (Sri Lanka). is a declared radical organization in Sri lanka.
 * Then what shall stop us to go with the name Buddhist Terrorism, for this article. --Omer123hussain (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalin was educated in a seminary for Orthodox Christian Priests and he used the Russian Orthodox Church as a propaganda tool during World War II for nationalist purposes. He also destroyed hundreds of Churches and killed thousands of priests like the Khmer Rouge destroying hundreds of monastaries and killed thousands of monks, should Stalin's atrocities be categorized under "Orthodox Christian terrorism"? The Khmer Rouge is not Buddhist and will not appear in this article.Rajmaan (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DKBA is NOT a terrorist org according to START, and is according to them a front funded by the ruling junta (not buddhist), with christian leadership. AumShinriko is a syncretist cult, combining christianity, yoga, and misinterpretation of buddhist teachings completely rejected by every other buddhist group on earth. TYC: good luck in arguing to let the chinese govt be the standard for who is a terrorist in tibet. The Khmer Rouge is not, has never been, buddhist. Having an ideology derived in small part from a religion (mostly a culture) doesnt make them that religion. BBS is radical, that doesnt make them terrorist per se. none of these groups are listed as both buddhist and terrorist at their articles (its either one or the other). We can debate all of these articles lack of citations of them being Buddhist and/or terrorist on their talk pages, but unless we have a consensus on at least 2 such groups being clearly Buddhist terrorists, the name, and thus the article, a form of WP:Original Research and WP:Synthesis, cant stand.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "AumShinriko is a syncretist cult, combining christianity, yoga, and misinterpretation of buddhist teachings completely rejected by every other buddhist group on earth."
 * 1 Pretty much all religions are syncretic to some extent.
 * 2 Who says that it's teachings are a misinterpretation? Plenty of christian groups would argue that other christian groups' teachings are misinterpretations of Christ's original teachings.
 * 3 Saying that its teachings are "completely rejected by every other buddhist group on earth" is completely unverifiable. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your points are valid, and i agree that those are not proper arguments to exclude them. however, their article is not categorized as a Buddhist group (rather, a new religious group), and doesnt show much evidence for their partial roots in vajrayana being very significant. Until someone can legitimately add "buddhist group" to the Aumshinriko article's categories (with sources showing they are a buddhist church/group), adding this group to Buddhist terrorism is a stretch, similar to the idea of adding all the historic Zen Buddhist groups in Japan to this article, as they all supported the Japanese Empire during WWII. should we then list them all as terrorist organizations, and then include them here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * START clearly mentions on its talk page Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) is a terrorist organization. Even it is declared by Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC) Its an open fact.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope the argument is done, I wish if someone come forward and conclude the discussion, and let the article remain and expand.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.