Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:32, 7 December 2006

Archives: 1

Moved to Buddhism in modern India

I've moved the article to Buddhism in modern India. I hope this will end the move war. User:Hkelkar and User:AMbroodEY were justified in moving the article to "Dalit Buddhist movement", because currently the article talks only about Ambedkar and his followers. I will add some information about others. I also request User:Pkulkarni to remain civil and not make remarks such as "People involved in violence are Hindus Or low-caste-Hindus they are not BUDDHISTS", "Anti-Indians" etc. Thanks. Oh, by the way, I'm neither Hindu nor Buddhist. utcursch | talk 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to fix all the doube redirects. I'm not doing it again. The one who moves the page is supposed to do it. —Hanuman Das 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Utcursch, you archived discussions that had comments from earlier today. Could you please clean this up?—Nat Krause 14:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the comments made on December 6, 2006 are of much interest. They include User:Hkelkar's reasons for move. And some comments by User:Pkulkarni such as "riots in India are laid by low-caste-Hindus", "change your BuddhistPhobia", "Anti-Indians are reverting article". I don't think these are worth discussing. I will move them here, if somebody wants me to. utcursch | talk 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with utcursch, it was a good decision. If the comments are going to be reintroduced, they should be refactored. Addhoc 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Utcursh, but dont we already HAVE an article on Buddhism in India? अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is too large to fit in Buddhism in India. Besides, merging will only make Buddhism in India controversial. utcursch | talk 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any personal quarrel with anybody. But the name Buddhism in modern India is proper. Because India got independance since 1947 and we also became one country. The Buddhist conversion Movement initiated by Dr. Ambedkar is in 1956. So the title is proper. We can put link in Buddhism in India for Buddhism in modern India. Pkulkarni 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The link already exists at Buddhism_in_India#Modern_revival. utcursch | talk 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Buddhism in modern India" should include information on Ladakh, Sikkim, Tawang, Tibetan exiles, etc. Is this the plan?—Nat Krause 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point, we've got to do away with the first sentence. These are a variety of movements that all started for a variety of reasons. I've no intention or desire to cut Dr. Ambedkar out of the picture by my statement, but merely to suggest that has a bit more scope.

The movement started by Dr. Ambedkar will be a specific and important part of this article, and as a relatively current event, will probably be expanded on in the near future.

At some point, we've got to discuss the term "Neo-Buddhism". Not only is it widely used in news sources, but it's also used in books as well. In order to draw the average reader to this article, the term must be used at some point. HOWEVER, that does not mean that we should label the movement and people as such without quotes where-ever possible. I refer you to the first paragraph of the article on Cults as an example.

Which brings me to my next, somewhat painful, suggestion. We have to specifically discuss Dr. Ambedkar's movement and the assertion by some that it is a Cult. We have to carefully examine what that word means, and how people are using it in this situation. If this is going to be a truly credible article, we've got to cover the bases.

I invite anyone who is concerned or alarmed about my comments to discuss it first on my talk page, then we can bring it here when we've worked things out (particularly if you have concerns about my intentions with these statements). In the interest of getting things done quickly and well, I believe this would be the best thing.

Thanks everyone for your hard work. NinaEliza 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Krause regarding the scope of this article, if this is going to be about all forms of Buddhism that exist within the borders of modern India. There is a similar issue with Tibetan Buddhism, which is currently about the tradition, but has a redirect from Buddhism in Tibet. Also, I agree with NinaEliza regarding inclusion of the term Neo-Buddhism. Addhoc 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's basically only one kind of Buddhism in Tibet. Not so in India.—Nat Krause 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you folks, will expand the article to include information about non-Ambedkarite Buddhists as well. utcursch | talk 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay. But, why? Why not just have an article about the Ambedkar movement? The so-called "Neo-Buddhists" and the various Tibetanesque groups have almost nothing to do with each other.—Nat Krause 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course, we could have both.NinaEliza 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)