Talk:Persecution of Buddhists/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled comment

Nothing on the Emperor Wuzong of Tang? Seriously?--T. Anthony 10:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious source

Can someone please explain the following source: "The Maha-Bodhi By Maha Bodhi Society, Calcutta"?

Is it a book, an article or what? Who is the author? If it is a book an Amazon link would be nice.Bless sins 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone also give the quotation of what the source says? (this may not be necessary if you can give me a google books link or sufficient coverage of the book on some book review site).Bless sins 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been a month since I requested more information. I'm removing it until someone can answer my above questions.Bless sins 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the journal of the maha-bodhi society. The founder of the Archeological Society of India , Alexander Cunningham helped start this journal I believe.Bakaman 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok. Can you give some evidence of reliability? Who are the contributors? Is it associated with an institution? Does it have an official website?Bless sins 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan

It was the one of only remaining Buddhist ancient figures in Afghan region which was able to survive from the Mughal invasion and later destroyed from the high explosives. Please do not try to destroy it for the second time. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How can those destroyed figures get destroyed again? --Raphael1 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep this in your mind fellas, destroying the statues of people who do statue worshiping, can be taken as a persecution without any arguments (Similar to the burning of Bible or Quran). --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite how it has been viewed as a persecution of Buddhists specifically. As far as I can see, the outcry at the time was not from Buddhists in particular, and nor did it focus on it as a specific act of persecution. Cite, or it gets removed. Hornplease 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that destruction of a symbol of religion is not persecution? Wikipedia is not a journal article which needs citation for each and every event, particularly when it is so well known!.Outlookeditor 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a citation that it is relevant. This article is about the persecution of Buddhists, not of Buddhist icons.Hornplease 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of things which relate to a person's religion is persecution of the person who follows the religion. Also we can use other images if this one is causing a problem. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Whom would I persecute, if I'd burn my Bible and Qu'ran? --Raphael1 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found a text discussing Buddhists reactions: [2]. They mostly repeat Buddhas teaching, that "all things are impermanent (anicca)". They speak about a "destruction of Buddhist heritage", but nobody claims "persecution of Buddhists" (which would be odd, since there were no Buddhists in Afghanistan even before Chengis Khan started to vandalize the Buddhas in the 14th century). --Raphael1 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, "Destruction of things which relate to a person's religion is persecution of the person who follows the religion" - only if the religion states it is. Find a reliable source indicating that the destruction of these monuments amounted to persecution of people elsewhere, then it can be included happily. All I ask. Hornplease 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you guys read the lead of the article?

Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or the incitement of hatred toward Buddhists.

By the way, Persecution of Muslims contains references to destruction of mosques ("The period the conquest of Kazan in 1552 to the ascension of Catherine the Great in 1762, was one of a systematic repression of Muslims by policies of exclusion and discrimination as well as the destruction of Muslim culture by destruction of outward manifestations of Islam such as mosques. "). The fact that Babri mosque was destroyed is also present. The whole article is full of incidents of mosques being targetted. Targetting of places of worship/reverence for a certain religious group is persecution. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with some 31 million Muslims. OTOH Buddhism declined in Afghanistan already in the 8th century. We should add the persecution of that time (in China as well) instead. --Raphael1 12:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The de-Islamification under Catherine is hardly comparable; the destruction of Islamic cultural heritage in that period was part of a sustained campaign to subordinate the Muslim communities of the south of the Empire, and thus actual persecution - ie of people and their property - was bound in with the destruction of 'their' heritage. My only claim here is that there were, to the best of my knowledge, no Buddhists who regarded the Bamiyan statues as 'their' property; at least, that is uncited. I would like to see some connection between the destruction of those statues and some actual Buddhists who felt persecuted, please. (And more persecuted than all of us felt at the destruction of part of our common heritage.) Hornplease 13:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The presence of Buddhists who user their statues for religious purposes is questionable. We clearly need more sources.Bless sins 05:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone justify further how the destruction of the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan is "persecution of Buddhists"? No Buddhist man, woman or child was harmed, nor was their property destroyed (the statues weren't their personal property).Bless sins 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again we draw your attention to the definition of persecution; "Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or the incitement of hatred toward Buddhists." It's exactly the same in principle when Muslims bleat on and on about Korans being flushed down the toilet. Let us use your logic BS. If I go to a store and buy a Koran it's my personal property is it not?. Am I not allowed to take a whizz on it and then try to flush it down the toilet? Why can't I smother it in gasoline and film it while I set it on fire? No women or children would be harmed. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That does make sense.Bakaman 02:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly Prester John, refer to me by my full name "Bless sins". Secondly, if a sick person buys a Qur'an and flushes it down the toilet, then they would not be, in theory, persecuting Muslims. But they'd be guilty of harboring anti-Islamic sentiment.Bless sins 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really can't see it above can you? Ok. Here it is for the third time. I'll help you out, the definition (again) will be in itallics, the relevant part will be highlighted in bold. Here it is again; "Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or the incitement of hatred toward Buddhists."

Your claim that the fully referenced section is WP:OR is absurd and will now be removed. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban were not the property of Buddhists, unless you can find a source that says so.Bless sins 12:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Destroying another religion's statues built over a thousand years ago is destruction of religious (and cultural) heritage on the basis of religious ideology and is therefore persecution. --Nozzer71 (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition

Can we get a definition of "persecution of Buddhists"? I would also like a reliable source that vies this definition. Thanks.Bless sins 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a problem with the current definition: "It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property".

What if a Buddhist man is carrying some illegal item (say, a weapon) and the police "confiscates" it. Is that an example of persecution? What if a Buddhist brings into a country some item (say, heroine) and the authorities declare illegal and destroy it, which is his property. Is that an example of "destruction of property" and thus persecution?Bless sins 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be persecution unless the individual (acting legally) was targeted because they were Buddhist. We're not referring to the confiscation or destruction of illegal drugs here. I'm sure you understand that though. It seems to me you're trying to selectively define persecution in a way that suits your belief that the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan was anything but persecution of Buddhists by the Taliban. --DTGHYUKLPOQWMNB 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget drugs. What if a Buddhist is found carrying something illegal? It could be drugs, or it could be something else. Should confiscating items that are illegal and destroying them be called "persecution"? Regarding the Bamyan issue, please see the section above.Bless sins 16:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that the same definition of persecution is in use at the article Persecution of Muslims. I also note that you support such a definition as you have referred to "land confiscations" and "home demolitions" as persecutions in connection with "Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories" here. So can we give the definition challenging and the OR tagging a rest please? --DTGHYUKLPOQWMNB 06:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you do note that I never acted upon what I said. I don't care what you write on the talk page, as long as it doesn't appear on the articlespace. Also, you can't cite wiki articles. Please find a source that defines this concept.Bless sins 16:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief. Blowing up religious antiquities is meant to injure (Though not in a physical sense).Bakaman 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'm sure many Muslims were "injured" by Jyllands Posten cartoons. Is that an example of persecution as well? Sarcasm aside, please review WP:SYNTH which prohibits the use of two sources to promote a third view not stated by either of the sources.Bless sins 10:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reading of WP:SYNTH is superficial and politically mischievous. A source noting the xxx government killing Buddhists would not be treated as persecution then. Boring us with false analogies really doesnt cut it.Bakaman 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the key issues: did the Taliban destroy Buddhist property illegally, and what is the source for persecution of Buddhists.Bless sins 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The questions deserve no answer, since they are obviously traps. There really need not be a source in a dictionary defining the term "persecution of buddhists" when we have two perfectly good terms "persecution" and "buddhists". As noted above, you do not use the same standard for Islam. Since news reports have documented a "persecution of buddhists" the concept meets WP:V which supersedes WP:SYNTH.Bakaman 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please not of the consensus achieved here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Persecution. Unless the word persecution is used we shouldn't be calling it persecution.Bless sins 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources termed it persecution, it is reported on this page.Bakaman 04:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Which source? I don't see any.Bless sins 03:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have re-instated the or tag since you have failed to provide a source that specifically says the Taliban persecuted Buddhists by demolishing the statues.Bless sins (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A source has been provided. Again it should be noted that debating the semantics of an issue, especially one in which you have been pointed out to doublespeak in, is unproductive and disruptive.Bakaman 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No a source for persecution of Buddhists has not been provided. Ironically, the only source that talks about persecution (this one), refers to persecution of Muslims in a Buddhist country (Cambodia).Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan?

How comes we have a section Pakistan? How many Buddhists can be persecuted in Pakistan? Are there any? --Raphael1 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that. The attempt to destroy ancient Buddhist statues and murals cannot be counted as persecution of Buddhists in these countries, because there aren't any Buddhists. Those criminals rather destroyed part of Afghan and Pakistani history, or at least it was an attempt to do that. I will remove that if nobody objects. --95.223.187.114 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Guest

Removed articles on persecution in Pakistan / Afganistan

Blowing up an ancient statue is not persecution of Buddhist. It is certainly wrong, and harms the tourist industry, as well historical treasures of that countries, but these cannot be called persecutions, not even harassment as these countries did not have any Buddhist communities at the time when these incidents happened. Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.187.114 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Buddhists&diff=prev&oldid=155937610 Muslim conquerors also described Indian Pagans as But-parast, and idol-breakers as but-shikan. The word "but" is derived from the Persian word for Buddha, but was used by subsequent Muslims for "Indian paganism" in general. Therefore in Muslim chronicles it is not always evident if Buddhists, Hindus or other Indian religions are described by term. In the 7th century Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Sindh and though he incorporated Buddhists into the into his administration as governors and is seen as having been welcomed against an unpopular Hindu king, is also noted to have demolished and sacked temples and monasteries and established Muslim rule. Around 1000 CE, Turkic, Persian, and Afghan Muslims began major incursions into India through the traditional invasion routes of the northwest. Mahmud of Ghazni (979-1030) established a base in Punjab and raided nearby areas. Mahmud of Ghazni is said to have been an iconoclast. Hindu and Buddhist statues, shrines and temples were looted and destroyed, and many Buddhists had to take refuge in Tibet. He demolished numerous monasteries alongside temples during his raid across north-western India. In 1193, Qutb-ud-Din, a Turkish commander, seized control of Delhi, leaving defenseless the northeastern territories that were the heart of Buddhist India. The Mahabodhi Temple was almost completely destroyed by the invading muslim forces. One of Qutb-ud-Din's generals, Ikhtiar Uddin Muhammad Bin Bakhtiyar Khilji, invaded Magadha and destroyed the great Buddhist shrines at Nalanda. The Buddhism of Magadha suffered a tremendous decline under Khilji. Muhammad of Ghor attacked the North-Western regions of the Indian subcontinent many times. Gujarat later fell to Muhammad of Ghor's armies in 1197. Muhammad of Ghor's armies destroyed many Buddhist structures, including the great Buddhist university of Nalanda. In 1200 Muhammad Khilji, one of Qutb-ud-Din's generals destroyed monasteries fortified by the Sena armies, such as the one at Vikramshila. Many monuments of ancient Indian civilization were destroyed by the invading armies, including Buddhist sanctuaries near Benares. Buddhist monks who escaped the massacre fled to Nepal, Tibet and South India. In 1215, Genghis Khan conquered Gandhara. In 1227, after his death, his conquest was divided. Chagatai then established the Chagatai Khanate, where his son Arghun made Buddhism the state religion. At the same time, he came down harshly on Islam and demolished mosques to build many stupas. He was succeeded by his brother, and then his son Ghazan who converted to Islam and in 1295 changed the state religion. After his reign, and the splitting of the Chagatai Khanate, little mention of Buddhism or the stupas built by the Mongols can be found in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Timur was a 14th-century warlord of Turco-Mongol descent , conqueror of much of Western and central Asia, and founder of the Timurid Empire. Timur destroyed Buddhist establishments and raided areas in which Buddhism had flourished. Mughal rule also contributed to the decline of Buddhism. They are reported to have destroyed many Hindu temples and Buddhist shrines alike or converted many sacred Hindu places into Muslim shrines and mosques. Mughal rulers like Aurangzeb destroyed Buddhist temples and monasteries and replaced them with Islamic mosques.

• Al-Biladhuri: Kitãb Futûh Al-Buldãn, translated into English by F.C. Murgotte, New York, 1924. See Goel's "Hindu Temples" for a list of 80 Muslim historians writing on the Islamic invasions.
• Sita Ram Goel: Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them 2 vols. ISBN 81-85990-49-2 Vol.1; Vol.2
• Elliot and Dowson: The History of India as told by its own Historians, New Delhi reprint, 1990.
• Majumdar, R. C. (ed.), The History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume VI, The Delhi Sultanate, Bombay, 1960; Volume VII, The Mughal Empire, Bombay, 1973.
• Koenraad Elst on allegations of "Hindu iconoclasm": Pushyamitra, Bodh-Gaya, Harsha of Kashmir, [3], [4]

Care must be taken that nothing is whitewashed in the article. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Persecution"

I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Buddhists, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Persecution by Hindus

Nothing about that? That is strange - as Hinduism was one of the strongest opponents of Buddhism in India - mainly because Buddhism opposed both Brahmanism as well as trad. views on caste and other views. I believe that much of the decline of Buddhism on the subcontinent can be attributed to that, as well as the inclusion of Lord Buddha into the Hindu phanteon as an emanation (Avatar) of Vishnu. There is also modern harrasment (not necessarily persecution) of lower caste Ambedkar inspired converts to Buddhism, particular in Maharashtra, India. SUMMARY OF BRAHMAN ATROCITIES THAT DESTROYED BUDDHISM IN INDIA

1) The Divyavadana (ed. Vaidya, 282). The most important of the murderous Hindu bigots who carried out their systematic campaign of violence against the peaceful followers of Lord Buddha was Pushyamitra (184-48 B.C.), the founder of the Shunga dynasty. For details and refrences do see BELOW

2) Goyal [430] “The culprit in this case was Toramana, a member of the same dynasty as the Shaivite Mihirakula who did “immense damage to the Buddhist shrines in Gandhara, Punjab and Kashmir.” For details and refrences do see BELOW

3) Mihirakula is said to have razed 1600 viharas, stupas and monasteries, and “put to death 900 Kotis, or lay adherents of Buddhism” [Joshi, 404].

4) The Aryamanjushrimulakalpa tells us that Pushyamitra “destroyed monasteries with relics and killed monks of good conduct.” [Jayaswal, 18-19]

5) As Goyal [394] notes, “According to many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India.”

6) The celebrated Tibetan historian Lama Taranatha mentions the march of Pushyamitra from Madhyadesha to Jalandhara. In the course of his campaigns, the book states, Pushyamitra burned down numerous Buddhist monasteries and killed a number of learned monks The archaeological evidence for the ravages wrought by Pushyamitra and other Hindu fanatic rulers on famous Buddhist shrines is abundant.

7) The Brhannaradiya-purana lays it down as a principal sin for a Brahmana to enter the house of a Buddhist even in times of great peril.

8) The drama Mrchchhakatika shows that in Ujjain the Buddhist monks were despised and their sight was considered inauspicious.

9) The Vishnupurana (XVIII 13-18) also regards the Buddha as Mayamoha who appeared in the world to delude the demons. Kumarila is said to have instigated King Sudhanvan of Ujjain to exterminate the Buddhists.

10) The Kerala-utpatti describes how he exterminated the Buddhists from Kerala.”

11) The Chinese traveller Yuan Chwang (Huen Tsang), who visited India in the seventh century records the oppressions of Shashanka, the king of Gauda, who was a devotee of Shiva.

12) Yuan Chwang’s account reads, “In recent times Shashanka, the enemy and oppressor of Buddhism, cut down the Bodhi tree, destroyed its roots down to the water and burned what remained.” [Watters II p.115] He also says that Shashanka tried “to have the image (of Lord Buddha at Bodhgaya) removed and replaced by one of Shiva”.

13) Another independent account of Shashanka’s oppressions is found in the Aryamanjushrimulakalpa, which refers to Shashanka destroying “the beautiful image of Buddha” [Jayaswal, 49-50].

14) Another prominent seventh century murderer of Buddhists was Sudhanvan of Ujjain, already mentioned in the quotation from Goyal above as having been supposedly instigated by Kumarila Bhatt.

15) Madhava Acharya, in his “Sankara-digvijayam” of the fourteenth century A.D., records that Suddhanvan “issued orders to put to death all the Buddhists from Ramesvaram to the Himalayas”.

16) Even after the Islamic invasions of India, Hindu bigotry and hatred for Buddhists was not subdued. According to Sharmasvamin, a Tibetan pilgrim who visited Bihar three decades after the invasion of Bakhtiaruddin Khilji in the 12th century, the biggest library at Nalanda was destroyed by Hindu mendicants who took advantage of the chaos produced by the invasion.

He says that “they (Hindus) performed a Yajna, a fire sacrifice, and threw living embers and ashes from the sacrifice into the Buddhist temples. This produced a great conflagration which consumed Ratnabodhi, the nine-storeyed library of the Nalanda University“. [Prakash, 213]. Numerous destroyed Buddhist shrines were converted into Hindu temples after their destruction.

17) Ahir [58] notes that “The Seat of Buddha’s Enlightenment was in the possession of a Hindu Mahant till 1952.

18) Similarly, at Kushinara, where the Buddha had entered into Mahaparinirvana, the cremation stupa had been converted into a Hindu temple, and on top of it stood the temple of Rambhar Bhavani when Cunningham discovered the site in 1860-61.

19) Among the shrines which still continue to be dedicated to Hindu gods mention may be made of the Caityas of Chezrala and Ter in Andhra Pradesh which are now Shiva and Vishnu temples respectively.

20) The temple of Madhava at Sal Kusa, opposite Gauhati in Asam, was once a sacred shrine of the Buddhists. …

21) And the famous Jagannatha temple at Puri in Orissa was also originally a Buddhist shrine.

22) Similarly, the Vishnupada temple at Gaya was also once a Buddhist shrine.” As Rajendralal Mitra notes in his famous work of 1878 [quoted in Ahir, 59] the feet of Buddha at Gaya were rechristened the feet of Vishnu and held as the most sacred object of worship in the new Vishnupada temple.

23) According to the records of Hieun Tsang and Kalhana’s Rajaatarangini, Asoka the great repented, converted to Buddhism (273-232 BC) and did a lot for Buddhism. Asoka renounced violence, and renounced his religion after the Kalinga war, and he became a Buddhist. During Asoka, Buddhism had become the state religion. The Brahmans did not like him, and many historians think the Brahaman opposition to Asoka led to the destruction of the Muyarian dynasty.

24) In Glimpses of World History Jawahrlal Nehru says the following about the Kushans (emphasis is mine and not Nehru’s): ” This Kushan Empire is interesting in many ways. IT WAS A BUDDHIST EMPIRE, and one of its famous rulers-the Emperor Kanishka-was ardently devoted to the dharma…the Kushans were Mongolians or closely allied to them. From the Kushan capital there must have been a continuous coming and going to the Mongolian homelands, and Buddhist learning and Buddhist culture must have gone to China and Mongolia…the Kushan Empire sat like a colossus astride the back of Asia, in between the Greaco-Roman world in the south. It was a halfway house both between India, and Rome, and India and China. The Kushan period corresponded with the last days of the Roman Republic when Julius Ceaser was alive, and first 200 years of the Roman Empire

25) THE HINDU KASHATRIYA HINDU AND BUDDHIST WARS Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says (Page 103 and 104) “Chandragupta proclaimed his holy war “against all foreign rulers in India. The Kashatriyas and the Aryan aristocracy, deprived of their power and positions by the aliens (Kushans), were at the back of this war. After a dozen or so years of fighting, Chandragupta managed to gain control over Northern India including what is now called UP. He then crowned himself king of kings. Thus began the Gupta dynasty. It was a period of somewhat aggressive Hinduism and nationalism. The foreign rulers-the Turkis and Parathions and other Non-Aryans were rooted our and forcibly removed. We thus find racial antagonism at work. The Indo-Aryan aristocrat was proud of his race and looked down upon these barbarians and malachas. Indo-Aryan States and rulers were conquered by the Guptas were dealt with leniently, But there was not leniency for non-Aryans.

26) Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says “Chandragupta’s son Samadugupta was an even more aggressive fighter than his father….the Kushans were pushed back across the Indus…Samadugupta’s son, Chandragupta II was also a warrior king, and he conquered Kathiwad and Gujrat, which had been under the rule of a Saka or Turki dynasty for a long time. He took the name Vikramaditya…..The Gupta period was a period of Hindu imperialism in India. There was a great revival of old Aryan culture and Sanskrit learning. The Hellenistic, or Greek and Mongolian elements in Indian life and culture which had been brought by the Greeks, Kushans and others were not encouraged, and were in fact deliberately superseded by laying stress on the Indo-Aryan traditions. Sanskrit was the official court language. But EVEN IN THOSE DAYS SANSKRIT WAS NOT THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE.

The spoken language was a form of Prakrit….Kalidasa belonged to this period ……………. Samadragupta changed the capital of his empire from Pataliputra (Peshawar) to Ayodhia. Perhaps he felt that Ayodhiya offered a more suitable outlook–with its story of Ramachandra immortalized in Valmikis epic.

27) HINDU BUDDHIST CONFLICT Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says “The Gupta revival of Aryanism and Hinduism was naturally not very favorably inclined towards Buddhism. This was partly because this movement was aristocratic, with the Kashatriya chiefs backing it, and Buddhism had more democracy in it; partly because the Mahayana form of Buddhism was closely associated with the Kushans and other alien rulers of northern India….but Buddhism declined in India…Chandragupta the first was a contemporary of Constantine the great, the Roman Emperor who founded Constantinople. “

28) HINDU IMPERIALISM SAILS TO THE FAR EAST AND DESTROYS THE MALAY CIVILIZATION The years of ANO DOMINI saw the beginning of Hindu imperialism outside India. Just like the Ferocious Aryans destroyed the IVC, these Hindu invaders destroyed the 2500 year old civilization of the Malay peninsula and imposed a foreign culture upon the peace loving people of the far east. Local temples were destroyed, people were enslaved, and the local language was abolished. Being polite, Jawahalal Nehru in the understatement of the century writes in his book Glimpses of World History says:

Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says “These colonizing excursions started in the first century after Christ and they continued for a hundred years. All over Malay and Java and Sumatra and Cambodia and Borneo they went, and established and took Indian culture with them…..In Burma and Siam and Indo-China there were large Indian colonies. Many times even of the names they gave to their new towns and settlements were borrowed from India-Ayodhia, Hastinapur, Taxila, Gandhara…No doubt Indian colonialists misbehaved wherever they went, as all such colonialists do. They must have exploited the people islands and lorded it over them….Hindu States and empires were established in these eastern islands, and then Buddhist rulers came, and between the Hindu and the Buddhist there was a tussle for mastery. It is a long and ..story………mighty ruins still tell us of the great buildings and temples …..there were great cities…Kamboja, Sri Vijay, Angkor …”

29) During this time Fa-hien visited India to study Buddhism (399 AD) and found “gaya wa waste and desolate“. He gives a detailed account of Buddhist persecution by the Brahman Aryans.

--95.223.187.114 (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Guest

Bangladesh

The few lines in the main article on 'Bangladesh' under the heading 'Persecution by Muslims' say :

"The Buddhist communities of Bangladesh are under pressure from the military and police not to practice Buddhism, and Buddhists have suffered abuse, arrest, and even rapes. The government encourages Muslim settlement in Buddhist areas, as part of its campaign to promote Islam.[32] According to Jumma exiles, torture and murder of Buddhists is a frequent occurrence.[33]"

This is a complete misrepresentation and mischaracterization of facts. Actually the word Buddhist here should be replaced by 'ethnic minorities of Parbattya Chattyagram' (a district in Bangladesh). Or just minorities. The situation this description actually alludes to, 'was' (note this) an ethnic & regional conflict between localized ethnic minority armed insurgents and the state/government. The insurgent group and the main ethnic minority tribes that it is made of (2 among 13 different tribes)happen to be Buddhists. But there are far more Buddhists in the country outside that particular region and of Bengali ethnicity (the dominant ethnic group in the country)who are living in the country perfectly ok. Even all the ethnicities (non-buddhists or not) in that region are not involved in that conflict. These groups felt their tribes/ethnic identities were marginalized and discriminated and engaged in an armed struggle with the government. I am not interested in the rights and wrongs here of that conflict, but it was in no way a buddhist-muslim or buddhism-islam conflict. The simple fact that, Buddhists in the entirety of the country outside that particular region did not join in that conflict or suffered in anyway as a result of that, shows that it was not a religious conflict. This goes to show that, it 'was' an ethnic conflict based on ethnic insurgency. The citations the article provides are also only about that particular region of the country -- not as a whole (and buddhists of various ethinicities live all over the country). At best, you may even call it a regional conflict, or one between the majority & minority. Of course, intelligent insurgent propaganda will obviously try to colour it in a different way to attract international sympathy for their cause (especially from other buddhist countries). Please note this.

Now, atrocities may have been committed, but it was mutual - committed by all parties involved. The editors of this article can check it out if they wish. The insurgents also brutally massacared many many innocent civilians of bengali ethnicity. Please remember the LTTE and other similar terrorist/insurgent groups here and their various shenanigans.

"pressure from the military and police not to practice Buddhism". Excesses happen in conflict zones all over the world. Few isolated incidents against ethnic minority rituals may (or not) have happened in that particular locale carried out by over-zealous individuals or individual counter-insurgency security personnel on hair-string footing and under constant insurgent/terrorist attacks & threats & pressure, but this happens nowhere else in the country, nor does your citations show that. Therefore, such generalized statement must be considered serious misrepresention of facts & thus falsehood. The practice of Buddhism is not banned anywhere in the country, nor is it discouraged in any shape or form anywhere. In fact Buddhist relics and sites are preserved with extreme care and reverence as part of national heritage (e.g. in Paharpur or Moynamoti). The Bengali language itself (the mother tongue of the dominant/ruling ethnic group of the country) traces its origins through Buddhist manuscripts of late first millenium Buddhist poems called "Chorjachorjo-Binishchoy" - the earliest extant examples of their language.

"Buddhists have suffered...": Ethnic insurgents (and perhaps sometimes members of their same ethnicities or tribes) may have because of their armed insurgency against the state (some of those ethic insurgents may have been Buddhists), but "Buddhists" as such did and does not. There are far more Buddhists in the country outside that region and those tribes, and they are not complaining. They are fine. In short, this is a misrepresentational generalized statement ! - which must be either corrected or deleted (preferably deleted since this article is not about ethnic conflicts, and relocated to any article on ethnic conflicts if necessary).

"...Buddhist areas...": There is NO buddhist area as such in the country at all. If there should be any, then the whole country IS. It's even official :-)) And it's also the fact on the ground. Buddhists are everywhere in the country since many Bengalis are also Buddhists (albeit minority). The fact of the matter is, the conflict zone I have referred to above, and the quoted text in the article very disingenuously and covertly also refers to without at all mentioning the completely localized (and ethnic) nature and extent of the problem, is mainly inhabited by many tribal ethnic groups. And not all of them are even Buddhists. There are christians, animists, and followers of other faiths too.

"...as part of its campaign to promote Islam...": The government does not and never did, conduct any campaign whatsoever to 'promote Islam' by 'encouraging Muslim settlement' anywhere in the country. This is just total hogwash. The incidences this line refers to were actually part of rehabilitation through resettlement program of destitute luckless landless people who have lost everything during many frequent catastrophic cyclones, tidal waves, floods, and other disastrous natural calamities that regularly plagues this poor and THE MOST DENSELY populated country in the world AND in the entire history of humankind ! (just visit Dhaka, if you want to get a taste of it first hand :-D You will never forget it I promise.) A large number of poor people in this country live (are forced to by circumstances) in landstrips, called 'Chor' in bengali, risen out of riverbeds - in this very highly riverine deltaic country. But these landstrips sometimes or often get washed away or drowned by floods etc, and the survivors have nowhere to go or re-settle to -- except for that particular relatively lightly-populated part of the country. The government in a certain period resettled a tiny minority of these people in that particular region out of sheer necessity. There are some though, who suspect other -- deeper hidden intentions. For example, the hidden intention of fighting a long-standing separatist ethnic insurgency in a longer term, by influencing the ethnic demography of that district by re-settling these destitute Bengali people there. There is no proof for this intention though apart from the suspicions or allegations of the insurgents themselves, and more importantly, on the face of it - the official reason looks quite genuine: there was nowhere these people could have re-settled (not enough free space or land available anywhere else in the country; and if people of the same country cannot move from one part of it to another and if necessary relocate/resettle/start a new life there, then what's the point of it being ONE country at all? They merely practised their legal, democratic and human rights. Finally, the problem arising out of this whole situation - whatever the hidden intentions of the government was or not, is entirely 'ethnic', and IN NO WAY related to 'Buddhism' as such ! That's sheer, and seemingly deliberate, misrepresentation. "...Jumma exiles..." : What is 'Jumma' ? It doesn't mean Buddhist or Buddhism at all. In fact, this word gives away the disingenuous misrepresantation and glaringly (to any informed person) covert intentions/agenda of the text. The word simply means, inhabitants of the hill region. Nothing to do with Buddhists as such. There are people of all sorts of persuasions in that region. It's a word that indicates a particular topography, NOT Buddhism.

FINALLY, all of the above situation of conflict has changed since 1997. A peace treaty was signed between the government and the insurgent tribal ethnic-based group fighting the government. Conflict and anti-insurgency military activities have totally stopped since then. The government has accepted almost all of their wishes : including (but not limited to) such utterly undemocratic demands like guaranteed 2/3rd majority in elections and guaranteed overwhelming majority in hill council seats by disenfranchising the rest of the population/citizens there, induction into local government and their personnel, induction into local law enforcement, land reform in favour of the minority ethnic groups, and the devastatingly inhuman wish of forced expulsion of ALL non-land-owning Bengali people from there. The last one practically and literally really means (probably deliberately camouflaged for any hidden agenda) the ethnic-cleansing of almost the entire ethnic Bengali population of that region, since most of them are actually non-landowning poor people who were resettled and rehabilitated there from other parts of the country generations ago -- inside clustered settlements on state/government-owned lands (and not owned by the settlers privately/personally). They will ALL have to go. In fact, if anything, the situation now should be called "an ethnic-cleansing of Bengalis - in waiting", instead of anything happening to Buddhitsts, ethnic minorities, or to anybody else.

...monmajhi... 02:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

        >>> The paragraph on Bangladesh deleted from the article based on the explanation given above.

--...monmajhi... 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmajhi (talk • contribs)

North Korea

There are no sources for the statements on North Korea, and the wording of the sentence regarding the cult of personality surrounding the Kim dinasty had non-neutral language so I rewrote it with proper encyclopedic language. Pradamant (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

Removed stale POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

An old neutrality tag that appears to have no active discussion has been removed from this page per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant

The article has been edited extensively in the three years since the tag was added, at this time there is no obvious overarching NPOV problem, and no evidence of ongoing discussion of neutrality, so I've removed the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, please feel free to restore the template (or use {{POV-section}} if more appropriate) and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! Worldbruce (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh

http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/93c2e289dbc8c5a3c1256981005ab69d/$FILE/0060489e.doc

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/MinorityIssues/Session4/ItemIV/BangladeshHinduBuddhistChristianUnityCouncil.pdf

http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/0129_Life_is_not_ours_1-108.pdf

http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/religion.html http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/religion/rlgcase.htm http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/religion/rajguru.html http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/faid.html http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/massacre/logangrp.html http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/massacre/mallya3.html http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/massacre/mallya4.html http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/massacre/mallya5.html http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/massacre/mallya6.html

http://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf

http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/16449

http://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/13207

http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/6933 https://web.archive.org/web/20120619090554/http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/6933

https://youtu. be/2g2DLk8sSdQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g2DLk8sSdQ

http://www.quora.com/Was-the-violence-against-Muslims-in-Myanmar-provoked-by-Muslim-violence-against-Buddhists

http://youtu. be/2g2DLk8sSdQ

http://m.firstpost.com/world/bangladesh-blames-rohingya-muslims-for-buddhist-temple-attacks-475542.html

https://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf

http://aboutarakaneng.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-development-of-muslim-enclave-in.html

http://hlaoo1980.blogspot.com/2012/06/development-of-muslim-enclave-in-arakan.html

http://teochiewkia.blogspot.com/2010/02/burma-rohingya.html

http://www.fprc.in/pdf/J-15.pdf

http://burmanationalnews.org/burma/images/Documents/fprcjourindmyanrel20133.pdf

https://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf

http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF15/Influx-Virus.pdf

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/40911747/file64388/11

18:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of this? You're not doing some kind of SEO are you? Volunteer Marek  05:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Persecution of Buddhists. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sasnet.lu.se/EASASpapers/19SwapnaBhattacharya.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hami.gov.cn/10037/10037/00016/00013/00004/2004/11719.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Persecution of Buddhists. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wQnNChmw?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.gu.edu.au%3A8080%2Fadt-root%2Fuploads%2Fapproved%2Fadt-QGU20061121.163131%2Fpublic%2F02Whole.pdf to http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20061121.163131/public/02Whole.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914141501/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/07/117_28491.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/07/117_28491.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://minivannews.com/society/mob-storms-national-museum-destroys-buddhist-statues-a-significant-part-of-our-heritage-is-lost-now-31813

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) 17:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions

I've removed some recently added text which introduced unnecessary duplication, e.g.; right after the content which describes the Khmer Rouge's atheistic revolution, text was added which again said the Khmer Rouge had a "policy of state atheism"; redundant. (And as an aside, the added source was already in that paragraph and doesn't say that, it says nothing about "policy" - only that Kampuchea was an atheist state. The lengthy quote embedded in the citation was also completely duplicated.) I also undid the addition of "who became an ardent atheist" after the mention of Pol Pot, which is not conveyed by the cited source (became? when? He wasn't born an atheist like everyone else?), and appears to have been added (along with the other additions) to introduce undue emphasis on 'atheism' in this context. In the Soviet Union section, I removed a useless cite to Dilip Hiro which gave no page numbers, removed a misquoted quotation, and a conveyance in Wikipedia's voice of "conversion", when the cited source actually put the dubious assertion in scare quotes. What were these additions intended to convey to our readers about the article topic? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The Zuckerman source

Sequel

Revision as of 10:15, 29 April 2017 by User:Ramos1990, edit-summary "attribute and paraphrase from source", changed:

" The Oxford Handbook of Atheism states that "... North Korea maintains a state-sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being that of the worship of the dictator", but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is."

into:

"Phil Zuckerman states that "... North Korea maintains a state-sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being that of the worship of the dictator", and notes that though atheism and totalitarianism make a repressive combination, totalitarianism in any government, whether theistic or atheistic, may be the bigger problem."

whereafter Revision as of 18:58, 29 April 2017 by User:Xenophrenic, edit-summary "re-paraphrase conclusion (I'm fairly certain "atheism and totalitarianism make a repressive combination" isn't the takeaway here)", changed this into:

"In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, Phil Zuckerman states that "... North Korea maintains a state-sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being that of the worship of the dictator", but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is, and arguments that atheism is somehow detrimental to society are manifestly false."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Zuckerman states "The first response to the reality of the examples above is simply this: atheism plus totalitarianism admittedly makes for an ugly, repressive combination. There is no question that some of the worst regimes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been explicitly atheistic. But perhaps atheism isn't the main problem. Maybe totalitarianism is. After all, some of the world's worst tyrannical, corrupt, and bloody regimes during the same time period have also been explicitly theistic.."

He also states, "But what good is tallying up corrupt dictators and noting if they were atheistic or theistic? Does it really matter? Not when we find plenty of gruesome tyrants in both camps. And when seeking to assess degrees of societal health and national well-being, we know that when power is held undemocratically, the result will always be negative. That is, all non-democratic, tyrannical regimes of the past 100 years have been corrupt, and have had deleterious societal effects. Fascism, totalitarianism, communism all such forms of national dominance have been based on might and repression, rather than freedom and liberty. They have all squelched societal progress, and severely limited societal well-being, be they theistic or atheistic."

So he acknowledges that atheism and theism have been components of repressive governments but reduces the weight on both theism and atheism, in terms of causes, since he believes totalitarianism is the catalyst since such systems seek control by any means either way. I tried to get the gist of what he does say and he does not remove atheism or theism from the equation completely, but shifts most of the weight for both. Does this help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, those are quotes from Zuckerman. But no, those are not all the quotes from pages 506-508. You cannot quote just his leading assertions, and then totally ignore his final conclusion. (You'll find his conclusions in the very next paragraph, under the header: CONCLUSION.) He certainly doesn't "reduce the weight" of theism and atheism in terms of causes of the actions of totalitarian dictators, he does indeed eliminate them entirely from the equation. See him answer his own question here on whether being theistic or atheistic matters to the equation: if they were atheistic or theistic? Does it really matter? Not when we find plenty of gruesome tyrants in both camps. And why you have completely ignored his conclusions is beyond me, including where he says: "This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well-being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society." I've returned the wording that conveys what the source says. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that User:Ramos1990's wording best reflects Zuckerman's wording used in his book. User:Xenophrenic it is clear that his wording is his own, rather than an accurate summary of the author's words. Jobas (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that User:Ramos1990's wording best reflects Zuckerman's wording used in his book. --Jobas

Of course you do. But unless you care to explain why, your comment doesn't advance the discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well according to the source Zuckerman states "The first response to the reality of the examples above is simply this: atheism plus totalitarianism admittedly makes for an ugly, repressive combination. There is no question that some of the worst regimes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been explicitly atheistic. But perhaps atheism isn't the main problem. Maybe totalitarianism is. After all, some of the world's worst tyrannical, corrupt, and bloody regimes during the same time period have also been explicitly theistic.." so User:Ramos1990's wording best reflects Zuckerman's wording used in his book, while your edit is only mentioned atheism and ignored totalitarianism.--Jobas (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jobas, you said "according to the Zuckerman source", but then you left out part of the source. Did you do that intentionally? Zuckerman also said, "But we can say this with surety: theism doesn't seem to help, nor is atheism a detriment." You also left out where Zuckerman said, "This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well-being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society." You can't cite a source, but then only use a snippet of text out of context while ignoring the rest. (And yes, my edit certainly did not ignore totalitarianism - please read more carefully.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is some consensus here on the wording so I will have to revert. The wording I had, actually stated what Zuckerman notes that BOTH theistic and atheistic dimensions are not the main issue while also acknowledging that combinations can be determental. He states that "atheism plus totalitarianism admittedly makes for an ugly, repressive combination. There is no question that some of the worst regimes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been explicitly atheistic." And then levels it out immediately after that by mentioning that totalitarianism may be the biggest issue since both camps have tyrants. Notice that in the edit I made, I mentioned both (like Zuckerman does - combination and then the main issue as totalitarianism) whereas on your edit you only mentioned atheism and ignored totalitarianism. Your edit looks like a defense of atheism than about regimes that did persecution, which is what this article is about, no? Also, I did not mention theism as being a source of good so I am not sure why you bring up atheism=bad and theism=good here. I pretty much paraphrased his quote on the matter of repressive government relating to regimes like those in North Korea and that is from the only section on regimes in that essay. Maybe we can work together on this? Please seek consensus here first.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the discussion where that consensus was developed. Until you point it out, and I get to review the development of that consensus, we should probably keep wording conveyed by the cited source.

...regimes that did persecution, which is what this article is about, no? --Ramos1990

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. And if you would like trim the wording back to just the subject of the article, I would be fine with that. But someone felt the need to also add atheism, without correctly conveying what the source said about it. That has now been corrected. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, 3 editors have already made comments here so it is not wise to just jump ahead. Please reach consensus first since it is 3 editors in dialogue at least for now. I saw the quote and felt it needed to be fleshed out since it does pertain to commentary about regimes that did persecute in North Korea and it did make a point about totalitarianism. Seems relevant enough. Now to the stuff on atheism, you did not convey what the source said about it since it mentioned totalitarianism as being the main issue aside form theistic or atheistic ideology. You did not even mention totalitarianism in your edit, which is part of the argument Zucekrman is making. So it did not reflect what the source was saying. My wording looks more in line with what Zuckerman said. Another editor here agrees too, it seems. Only you seem to disagree but do not provide better wording relating Zuckerman's argument here about repressive regimes. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

3 editors have already made comments here so it is not wise to just jump ahead -- Ramos1990

To be clear, 3 editors commenting does not a consensus make, when those three consist of you (proposing a new wording), me (proposing an alternate wording) and Jobas (saying only "me too" with no impact on consensus due to lack of argument). I suspect you understand our consensus process better than you are now letting on, so it is disheartening to see you cite a nonexistent consensus to justify an attempt to edit-war your newly proposed wording into our article. Your good advice not to jump ahead applies equally to all in this matter.

You did not even mention totalitarianism in your edit, which is part of the argument Zucekrman is making... --Ramos1990

Of course I mentioned totalitarianism in my edit. (See below where I quote your proposed edit and my proposed edit in full.) And you also said this, which needs clarification as it appears this is where we disagree on what the source says in its totality:

it mentioned totalitarianism as being the main issue aside form theistic or atheistic ideology --Ramos1990

No, to be clear, it mentions totalitarianism as being the only issue - and theism and atheism do not matter because we "find plenty of gruesome tyrants in both camps." I think what is tripping you up is you are taking Zuckerman's preliminary speculative wording as standalone conclusions, and then ignoring his actual conclusions. For example, he does mention a "first response" (read: knee-jerk response) is to think atheism plus totalitarianism is a bad combo (and you seem to be running with this), before he proceeds to negate that with his two "But..." examinations, explaining that totalitarianism is the problem, and theism and atheism don't really matter. Then he gives his conclusion firmly, without all of the equivocal wording necessary when setting up his hypothesis (e.g.; "perhaps atheism", "maybe totalitarianism", etc.), stating, "But we can say this with surety: theism doesn't seem to help, nor is atheism a detriment." And further, "This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well-being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society." I hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, Ramos, your most recent edit deleted content from the Soviet Union section about the League of Militant Godless, etc., without mention anywhere here or in your edit summaries. Could we discuss your concerns with that content, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Xenophrenic's editing, and Ramos1990's. Ramos1990's version meets WP:NPOV, while Xenophrenic's version seems to "try hard" to make an effort to exonerate atheism from any of the persecution that took place as authorities forcibly propagated atheism throughout Soviet Russia. It's obvious that there is consensus to retain the version edited by Ramos1990. desmay (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the edits. You say that Ramos' proposed version meets NPOV, yet you do not explain how, in light of the objections raised. Please do not keep us in suspense. If you don't share your reasoning behind your opinion, your comment doesn't help to advance our attempts to reach consensus.

an effort to exonerate atheism from any of the persecution that took place as authorities forcibly propagated atheism throughout Soviet Russia. --desmay

Huh? Now you have me concerned that you may be talking about a completely different edit than the rest of us. "Soviet Russia"? We're discussing North Korea. "Exonerate atheism"? It isn't implicated here, totalitarianism is, and in fact, the source explicitly refutes the implication that atheism is the source of the persecution or any of the other societal ills. Per Zuckerman, "But we can say this with surety: theism doesn't seem to help, nor is atheism a detriment." And further, "This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well-being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society." You are free to disagree with Zuckerman (I've seen your User Page), but please be careful not to misrepresent what the source says here, or interject your personal beliefs. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Zuckerman source

Which proposed wording more closely conveys what the cited source is saying:
Proposal #1 (cited only to page 506):

Phil Zuckerman states that "... North Korea maintains a state-sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being that of the worship of the dictator", and notes that though atheism and totalitarianism make a repressive combination, totalitarianism in any government, whether theistic or atheistic, may be the bigger problem.

Proposal #2 (cited to pages 506-508):

In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, Phil Zuckerman states that "... North Korea maintains a state-sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being that of the worship of the dictator", but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is, and arguments that atheism is somehow detrimental to society are manifestly false.

• Proposal #2 - as better conveying what the (whole) cited source says, if forced to choose between just the two. However, as a possible third option, we can quite simply omit the troublesome wording and just say "Zuckerman states that the only 'religion' permissible under the totalitarian regime in North Korea is that of the worship of the dictator." Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I've seen no one yet address Zuckerman's conclusions, from the cited source: "But we can say this with surety: theism doesn't seem to help, nor is atheism a detriment." And "This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well-being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society." Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

With reference to Soviet Russia, I was referring to you removing the statement that Rarmos1990 rightly restored, which states 'Buddhism had "nothing to do with militant atheism, which was based on the Marxist-materialist interpretation of the laws of nature and society"'. Is there any reason you wanted to WP:CENSOR that? Your wording (which didn't reference the quote in the reference at all) unjustly removed a direct quote from the article in order to make it appear that Soviet policy towards Buddhism was a relaxed one, even though the source clearly shows that it is not, e.g. "many monasteries were forcibly closed and many monks arrested and sent into exile." Also, like I said, with regard to you including WP:UNDUE statements in the North Korea section, you "try too hard" to try to exonerate atheism. There's no need to say "but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is, and arguments that atheism is somehow detrimental to society are manifestly false." That is your unsupported opinion, not agreed with by noted historians (e.g. Borden Painter "The New Atheist Denial of History") making it clear that atheism was to be enforced under the ideological goal of wiping out "superstitious religion." This article should be about facts, i.e. that North Korea is an atheist state that perseuctes Buddhists because of that official doctrine. It should not be about propagating the opinion of one atheist scholar that you happen to agree with. I strongly support proposal one by Ramos1990. desmay (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that your Soviet Russia remarks were in regard to my reverting this edit, because it removed reliably sourced information without explanation. Now if you'll read more carefully, you'll discover that I didn't "remove" anything after all. The wording you quoted is still there embedded in the source citation. Your claim of WP:CENSORship is a bit offensive; can you not drag this discussion down to that level, please? Your claim that my wording tries to "make it appear that Soviet policy towards Buddhism was a relaxed one" shows that you didn't read my wording, which maintains that after Stalin assumed power, the suppression of religious influences in society, including Buddhism, was increased and During Stalin's purges, thousands of Buddhist lamas and priests were sent to the gulags or executed. Now according to our cited sources, Soviet attitude toward the Buddhists vacillated between mutual support and suppression, depending on the pragmatic needs of the regime at different times: "Soviet leadership took advantage of this Buddhist modernism and made every effort to link Soviet power with the messianic expectations of the Lamaist world. The most significant official interpretation of Buddhism at that time is to be found in the article on Buddhism in the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia... a perceptible flourishing of the Buddhist monastery school system. Even the young communist movement of Central Asia recruited its cadres from the monastery schools ... By 1923 several new monasteries had been founded (the exact number is not known) and the number of Lamas had risen to 16,000 ... Soviet authorities were more conciliatory toward Buddhists and allowed priests to travel to Mongolia to study. Now monks visit India, Japan and other countries to study Buddhist canon and establish contacts with Buddhist faithful overseas ..." Ramos1990 didn't "rightly restore" anything on the Soviet Union, it appears to be collateral damage when he reverted edits in another section (see his explanation below). I'll be returning the article improvements that you undid, since the reasoning you gave for undoing them does not hold up under closer scrutiny.

Regarding the North Korea content, our cited source does not implicate atheism, so there is no need to "exonerate atheism". Perhaps, again, you should read the source more carefully.

There's no need to say "but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is, and arguments that atheism is somehow detrimental to society are manifestly false." That is your unsupported opinion... --desmay

That is wildly incorrect. It isn't my opinion, it is an assertion of fact from the cited reliable source, which Wikipedia policy requires us to convey. Your comment that an ordained priest (Borden Painter) disagrees doesn't strike me as relevant (or surprising). Sure, he's a former history teacher, but the disagreement in this discussion isn't about history -- we all agree on the history of the matter that Buddhists suffered persecution under the totalitarian regime in North Korea. The disagreement in this discussion arises when certain editors try to interject their personal POV and attribute the cause of such societal repression to atheism, which our reliable source doesn't convey, and in fact firmly refutes. (That is a sociology subject, which is why it comes from the section of the source labeled "Part V - Atheism and the Social Sciences", instead of the "Part II - History" section.) If you wish to advance your personal view, perhaps you should set up a website and YouTube channel for that purpose. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic, I kindly ask that you not add comments throughout the thread here in older comments made by other editors. The responses are getting very confusing as to who you are talking to since you insert "newer" comment back into older text. The chronology is getting confusing. Your responses should be collective in a paragraph like all other editors do. That way we have clear indication of each editors views and not mess with flow of each editors view or their chronology and interrupt their flow of thought. Keeping context is important.

In any case, the quote by Zuckerman that pertains to the article talks about North Korea as a competitor to any religions (well a monopoly against any other religions). It seems useful and it is Zuckerman that follows it up with totaliatrianism and the rest of it. So we are just completing his thinking pertaining to religious persecution in North Korea and his explanations of possible sources of religious persecutions in general - totalitarianism no matter if atheistic or theistic. Like in "proposal 1". By adding "...arguments that atheism is somehow detrimental to society are manifestly false." moves away from his thinking on religious persecution and into a whole different topic - "are theism or atheism good or bad for societies in general?" or something like that (which he seems to say theism and atheism are both not inherently bad). With the edit I have, it clearly notes that theism and atheism are not the issue, but totaliatrianism is - so it already takes care of your concerns about on "But we can say this with surety: theism doesn't seem to help, nor is atheism a detriment." Maybe we can simply say something like "...notes that totalitarianism in any government, whether theistic or atheistic, may be the issue since both camps have their share of tyranny." He of course says very good things about theism on the section before atheist regimes, but I still think that info would be irrelevant to include. I would rather just quote him on what he says relating to regimes like those in North Korea and finish off his thoughts like he said "The first response to the reality of the examples above is simply this: atheism plus totalitarianism admittedly makes for an ugly, repressive combination. There is no question that some of the worst regimes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been explicitly atheistic. But perhaps atheism isn't the main problem. Maybe totalitarianism is. After all, some of the world's worst tyrannical, corrupt, and bloody regimes during the same time period have also been explicitly theistic.." also see full quotes in the top of this section.

Keep in mind that Zuckerman mixed these theistic/atheistic variables, not me. What he says is that totalitarianism, no matter if theistic or atheist, is the "main problem". In his view, both are not the core causes of these problems. Does that help?

In terms of the Soviet stuff, I just reverted your single edits which seemed to change the Zuckerman source + other stuff that seemed well sourced or even quoted too. I am just focused on the Zuckerman source at the moment, and it was easier to just revert all the changes while we are discussing this. Please be patient. I see that another editor reverted you. Be careful. There are 4 editors now and no one agreed to remove Zuckerman, yet you went ahead an removed him while on this discussion without consensus on removal. Seems a bit aggressive since so far all else think Zuckerman is a keep. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ramos1990. It is unfortunate that you find Talk page threads confusing, but I'm afraid I must continue to follow Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:THREAD and WP:INDENT - Example 3, for instance) when formatting my comments here (where other editors are also reading). However, since it is very important to me that you fully understand what I say, I'm willing to replicate my comments on your User Talk page in whatever format you feel will best facilitate your comprehension. Please let me know.

With regard to the North Korea section edits, when we cite Zuckerman, Wikipedia policy strictly prohibits us from "just completing his thinking" for him. We must instead stick to what the source actually conveys, and leave such creative extrapolation out of it. Your very confusing claim, that Zuckerman's comments about North Korea's repression of civil rights and social liberties and freedom of religious expression is "a whole different topic" than whether atheism and theism are good or bad for societies, is untenable. Please recall that the title of source paper is "Atheism and Societal Health", and the lead-in to the "Atheist Regimes" content states: "Albania, the former Soviet Union, and North Korea stand out as obvious examples of officially atheist nations that have exhibited very low levels of societal health. This matter deserves serious consideration." When Zuckerman concludes that "we can say this with surety: theism doesn't seem to help, nor is atheism a detriment", and "This fact renders suspect any proclamation that theism is a necessary element or condition of societal well-being, and it renders manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society", he does not add "oh, except for the detrimental repression of freedom of religious expression."

With the edit I have, it clearly notes that theism and atheism are not the issue, but totaliatrianism is - so it already takes care of your concerns... --Ramos1990

No, it does not say that, and does not address my concerns. Your proposed edit (which somehow keeps finding its way into our article during a consensus discussion - tsk tsk) does not say atheism and theism aren't the issue, it only says that totalitarianism is the bigger issue. That is a problem, and misleads our readers. Your proposed edit also claims that Zuckerman "notes" (implying an assertion of fact) that "atheism and totalitarianism make a repressive combination", which he doesn't. He only says that is a "first response" one might have, by looking at the three examples. He confirms the part that they were atheistic regimes, -but- and here he sets up his speculative hypothesis, maybe atheism isn't the problem and totalitarianism is. (These are not his conclusions, mind you.) He then goes on to confirm his hypothesis, affirming that atheistic/theistic doesn't matter, and being non-democratic, tyrannical, totalitarian, is the problem. In his conclusion statement, he strips away all argumentative hypotheticals and relativisms ("maybe", "main", "perhaps", etc.) and informs us in no uncertain terms that it is "manifestly false the argument that atheism is somehow detrimental to society."

I'm sensing a theme among the editors struggling mightily to prevent the source's actual conclusions from appearing in our article. Despite our reliable source stating the opposite, some editors seem to have it in their heads that atheism is the cause of societal ills such as religious repression and persecution. User:desmay sees "an effort to exonerate atheism from any of the persecution that took place" and thinks North Korea is "an atheist state that perseuctes [sic] Buddhists because of that official doctrine". User:Ramos1990 appears upset that the addition of the source's conclusions "looks like a defense of atheism". These editors are welcome to hold these personal points of view, but they should not be made a part of editing Wikipedia.

Seems a bit aggressive since so far all else think Zuckerman is a keep. --Ramos1990

All else? I think everyone agrees Zuckerman is a keep. What is aggressive is the insertion of a contested, problematic version of Zuckerman while this discussion is proceeding - without consensus. I've left my proposed version out of the article for now, and you should, too. What are your thoughts about my "third option" wording proposed in the Survey section above? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic. You are right that the Zuckerman source is about social health, but the only section that even talks about North Korea and his explanations for such repressions are only found in the section of "Atheist Regimes". So his comments in this particular section is relevant to the article topic. In the Conclusion section from which you quote one or two lines, Zuckerman does not mention North Korea or repression by government at all. There, he only makes general observations on social health, theism, and atheism that are not related to the scope of this wiki article, which is on persecution - not whether theism or atheism are causes of good or evil (he has mixed views on pages 504 and 505 by the way)! If he does talk about repressive government in the conclusion section, can you quote him on it? I don't see him mentioning on that specifically there as that would be relevant if such was the case, no? So this is the disagreement. I would prefer to just quote him on the matter of persecutions like I already quoted in my first posting on this section above and leave it at that. He mixes the variables, not me, in his talk about repression.

So I am not adding anything new here, nor is this WP:OR, since the previous wording on the article, before I even edited, said "..but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is" and what Zuckerman really said was "The first response to the reality of the examples above is simply this: atheism plus totalitarianism admittedly makes for an ugly, repressive combination. There is no question that some of the worst regimes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been explicitly atheistic. But perhaps atheism isn't the main problem. Maybe totalitarianism is. After all, some of the world's worst tyrannical, corrupt, and bloody regimes during the same time period have also been explicitly theistic.." That was clearly the quote being referenced before I came into the picture here and it sure is quite complex in what he says. I would tighten the wording to say something like "...argues that totalitarianism by any government, whether theistic or atheistic, is the main issue for repression and abuses of people." Would that work? It seems like a decent compromise and it avoids blaming atheism or theism or whatever, since he in the ends does not argue that theism or atheism are necessary for acts of persecution. Even though, he notes that in combination with totalitarianism, both theism and atheism can make a repressive combination.

Finally, if it is true that even you felt the Zuckerman source was relevant, then why did you delete it twice ([5] [6]? Even in the talk, you have not explained why you removed it. Considering that there is no consensus supporting removal and since the issue is only wording, I will restore it for the time being without anyone's "extra" wording. Seems fair for the time being.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I do feel there is information in the Zuckerman source which is relevant (see my "third option" mentioned above, for example). I have never "deleted" or "removed" it -- what I did was move it here for discussion, which is standard procedure for disputed content. (See WP:TALK#FACTS: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial.) I explained this in my edit summary when I parked it here. I said: (mvd Zuckerman source (and content cited to it) to Talk page for discussion to develop consensus on wording disagreement; see Talk page section: Talk:Persecution_of_Buddhists#The_Zuckerman_source). Perhaps you missed it? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

...a decent compromise and it avoids blaming atheism or theism or whatever... --Ramos1990

If you are sincere about avoiding "blaming atheism or theism or whatever", then why do we mention atheism or theism in relation to persecution at all? That is why I proposed that third option above. Also, you asked if Zuckerman specifically spoke about government repression again in his conclusion statement; not by name, but he did lump all of the "so many factors" into one basket and declared that atheism wasn't a detrimental factor or accountable for it. What do you view as the most important contribution (related to Persecution of Buddhists) for our readers from the Zuckerman source? By the way, he doesn't actually mention "Buddhism" or say "persecution", but I hope reasonable people can agree that when he does speak of the denial of basic human rights and disallowing of all religions, that qualifies as related to our article focus of "Persecution of Buddhists". Xenophrenic (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

the previous wording on the article, before I even edited, said "..but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is" and what Zuckerman really said was "[quote of only his hypothesis, without his Conclusion]" --Ramos1990

What you quoted is what Zuckerman postulated (see the wording "maybe", "perhaps", etc.), and not what he later "argued" or "concluded". My wording took into account his arguments and conclusions, while your proposed wording conveys only his hypothesis setup. I've seen you frequently cite Zuckerman in other discussions and articles here on Wikipedia, so I took it for granted that you were familiar with his style of writing and argumentation. I've asked you several times what your thoughts were on my "third option" mentioned above, and haven't heard anything. Let me rephrase the question, and ask if you see anything objectionable in the following wording cited to our Zuckerman source: "Zuckerman states that the only 'religion' permissible under the totalitarian regime in North Korea is that of the worship of the dictator." Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Look at the "Sequel" section above where Johnathan Johnathan notes the history of changes. It should be clear that the edit before I came here was " The Oxford Handbook of Atheism states that "... North Korea maintains a state-sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being that of the worship of the dictator", but concludes that atheism isn't the problem, totalitarianism is." So I did not add the line about atheism and totalitarianism in partuclular, but his quote on North Korea did mention that. I suppose another editor felt the need to comment on atheism at that point instead of leaving the quote on North Korea like Zuckerman said. So I corrected, per Zuckerman's views, per his quotes on what he said after North Korea. Zuckerman certainly mixed atheism and even theism in his section on atheist and theist regimes and that is the only place where he discusses such topics, specifically on North Korea. It is not a hypothesis at that point since he makes his points about regimes there followed by a firmer paragraph stating that communism, fascism, etc are all bad no matter if theistic or atheistic. He does not mention this point or any point on tyranny in the conclusion section, which is why quotes from there are about social health in general rather than about the regimes specifically. Zuckerman certainly has a very interesting way of writing for sure since he tends to provide convenient and incontinent truths about religion and secularity , but it is what it is.

Ideally, I would to just leave Zuckerman's quote on North Korea only. I prefer quotes on the article at this point than editorializing since too much ink has already been wasted on this and the best way to represent Zuckerman is to leave him to his views in his own words on North Korea specifically (he does not say anything about North Korea in the conclusion). The value judgement on atheism and theism that follow after the North Korea comments can be ignored since what Zuckerman says about North Korea is indeed a fact about North Korea and leave it that that. It should be the simplest solution without deviating into a whole other topic of whether theism or atheism are good for societies (which is not part of the scope of this wiki article). Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to briefly return to my two questions to you before responding to your latest comment.

(1) What do you view as the most important contribution (related to Persecution of Buddhists) for our readers from the Zuckerman source?

(2) Do you see anything objectionable in the following wording cited to our Zuckerman source: "Zuckerman states that the only 'religion' permissible under the totalitarian regime in North Korea is that of the worship of the dictator."?

I think your answers to these questions would go a long way to setting us on a path to resolving any remaining disagreements. What information are we trying to convey about "Persecution of Buddhists" from this source? This isn't an article about Zuckerman's views, and the source we're citing isn't a source about the persecution of Buddhists, so let's clearly understand just what it is we're trying to provide to our readers of this article, and why we are citing this source to that end. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The main contribution to the article is about the North Korean monopoly on religion like Zuckerman stated - "... North Korea maintains a state-sanctioned and enforced atheism, with the only 'religion' permissible being that of the worship of the dictator". Pretty much any other religion is not allowed and that means that Buddhism or any other is one is eliminated or suppressed. This is what seems relevant to the article.

We have had too much trouble with paraphrasing and wording wording that I am no longer considering it as serious option. No more paraphrasing, no more editorializing. I would leave Zuckerman's quote as is on North Korea and let it stand alone in his words. Do you see anything objectionable? It is the simplest solution here.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If all we are trying to convey to our readers is that North Korea has a monopoly on religion, and that the only worshipping going on is the worship of the dictator, then wording "that the only 'religion' permissible under the totalitarian regime in North Korea is that of the worship of the dictator" appears to fit the bill perfectly. Also, I noticed that you did not express any specific objection to that wording. You have, however, now expressed a more general objection to paraphrasing. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Neutrality policies, quotations are to be used sparingly, paraphrasing is recommended instead, and if a quotation is to be used, it should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source.

You ask if I have any objections. Do I have objections to quoting Zuckerman? No. But I do object to quoting only the snippet you have proposed (an objection expressed in the discussion above) as potentially misleading. When I suggested additional quoted words from the same source to more thoroughly convey that information, you seemed to object. So "the simplest solution" appears to be neither paraphrasing nor direct quoting. Add to that the fact that neither Buddhism nor persecution are specifically mentioned by this source, and I'm starting to wonder if perhaps "the simplest solution" is to find sources more relevant to the topic of our article. If you must stick with Zuckerman, he expresses the identical thoughts - but with different words - in his book Society Without God (Pgs. 20-22) with this quote:

And North Korea isn't any prettier. It is one of the most un-free, destitute societies on earth today. Similar to what happened in Albania, in North Korea, religion is severely repressed, with the only truly acceptable and legal "religion" being worship of its brutal dictator

Once again, he doesn't mention Buddhism specifically - only religion generally. And he doesn't detail the persecution; he only mentions repression. But let's try a little thought-experiment here: How would you feel about directly quoting from that Zuckerman text? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Soviet denial of Buddhist atheism

Myself, User:Ramos1990 and User:Jobas see nothing wrong with directly quoting the statement from the academic journal that states "The Party and State countered with the argument that Buddhist atheism had nothing to do with militant atheism, which was based on the Marxist-materialist interpretation of the laws of nature and society." You have removed information about militant state atheism across several articles on Wikipedia and I'm not going to allow you to coninue to do that--it's nothing but censorship and the WP:BURDEN is on you here to try to justify why you want to take this information out. Is it because atheism is being portrayed in a negative light here and you don't wish readers to see that? If you continue to edit war, I'm taking you to WP:AN/3RR and User:Ramos1990 and User:Jobas will be subpœnaed. Consider this formal warning. desmay (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Desmay. Since you "see nothing wrong" with the "quotation" you are trying to edit-war into our article, perhaps further explanation would help. First, you are not adding a quotation. It is a paraphrase with a partial quote, and a poor one at that. The problematic text you appended to an existing sentence is this:

and the Soviet Union held that Buddhism had "nothing to do with militant atheism, which was based on the Marxist-materialist interpretation of the laws of nature and society"

You'll note that your addition wrongly claims the Soviets were speaking about Buddhism, instead of "Buddhist atheism"; a serious confusion on your part but not the primary issue. The actual two main issues are: (1) that you conveyed just the first part of the content from the source, while completely omitting the second part, which says that such an ideological argument from the Soviets was ineffectual, so they had to resort to more direct means of administrative repression. (I even told you in my edit summary where to read up on this in the cited source, as a convenience to you.) (2) The prelude to your partial quote gives the impression that it is an actual quote from the Soviet Union, rather than Bräker.

Now that you have a clearer understanding of what is wrong with your proposed addition, perhaps you can help me understand what is "right" with it? What information are you trying to convey to our readers with that half-sentence addition? I've looked for clues in your comment, but to no avail:

You have removed information about militant state atheism across several articles on Wikipedia and I'm not going to allow you to coninue to do that... --Desmay

No, I haven't, and since you haven't provided any substantiating links or evidence, there is nothing more I can say about such nonsense. I have, when I've run across it, removed or re-worded unencyclopedic (or just plain false) text added by ideologically-driven and/or bigoted editors; is that what you mean? I've seen where your User Page says you are the founder of the "escapingatheism" website, which declares "atheism is bullshit". You are welcome to your own opinions, of course, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to wage battle with those who may not share your views.

it's nothing but censorship and the WP:BURDEN is on you here to try to justify why you want to take this information out. --Desmay

More confusion on your part. The WP:BURDEN rule says it is the responsibility of the editor adding content to provide a citation to a reliable source. I'm not the person adding that content, and we aren't lacking a reliable source citation, so you are linking to the wrong policy. What you are looking for is WP:ONUS - verifiability alone is not a reason for inclusion, and does not guarantee that any content must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So how about helping to develop that consensus by acknowledging the concerns raised, addressing them, and helping to resolve them?

Is it because atheism is being portrayed in a negative light here and you don't wish readers to see that? --Desmay

With that question, you have revealed a lot. Are you saying you are adding that problematic text because you hope it will portray atheism in a negative light? I'm not seeing the "negative light" in it, but even if you are failing at the attempt, the fact that you are even attempting it is disturbing enough. Keep in mind that this article is about Persecution of Buddhists, and not about atheism - and our source even explains that the Soviet attempts at countering Buddhism on ideological grounds (claiming it wasn't an atheistic religion) wasn't effective - so I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on what the benefit is to our readers in the text you are proposing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Jobas: to this discussion. I see you have added the problematic content to the article. Can you please give us your thoughts on how to resolve the concerns about that content, as they have been described just above? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic, as User:Desmay stated, the quotation "The Party and State countered with the argument that Buddhist atheism had nothing to do with militant atheism, which was based on the Marxist-materialist interpretation of the laws of nature and society" is DIRECTLY lifted from the source. These are not my words or Desmay's words but those of Hans Bräker, a scholar writing in a peer reviewed academic journal. This was in the article before you started edit warring and now you must explain why exactly you'd like it to be removed from the article. It is a statement that informs the reader WHY Soviet authorities took a hardline stance against Buddhism and it will be included in this article.--Jobas (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Jobas, nobody disagrees that quote is from the Hans Bräker source. That is not the problem. That quote was not in the body of our article until you added it just 4 days ago here. Here are the issues with the edit as I explained above (it's still there):

You'll note that your addition wrongly claims the Soviets were speaking about Buddhism, instead of "Buddhist atheism"; a serious confusion on your part but not the primary issue. The actual two main issues are: (1) that you conveyed just the first part of the content from the source, while completely omitting the second part, which says that such an ideological argument from the Soviets was ineffectual, so they had to resort to more direct means of administrative repression. (I even told you in my edit summary where to read up on this in the cited source, as a convenience to you.) (2) The prelude to your partial quote gives the impression that it is an actual quote from the Soviet Union, rather than Bräker.

Keep in mind that this article is about Persecution of Buddhists, and not about atheism - and our source even explains that the Soviet attempts at countering Buddhism on ideological grounds (claiming it wasn't an atheistic religion) wasn't effective - so I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on what the benefit is to our readers in the text you are proposing. Or if we decide to include it, how best to incorporate the rest of the information from page 41? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Persecution of Buddhists. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913032140/http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54808 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54808
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000113/j%26k.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan14/0%2C4670%2CThailandSouthernViolence%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030061528/http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=170&catid=30%3Anews&Itemid=12 to http://www.ltwa.net/library/index.php?option=com_multicategories&view=article&id=170&catid=30%3Anews&Itemid=12

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) 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Persecution of Buddhists. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000113/j%26k.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516095640/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_travel_story_skin/791031 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_travel_story_skin/791031

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) 04:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Should "atheist" be in a header?

Why are you calling people Christians, Muslims etc but not atheists. Let's not whitewash the fact that atheists have discriminated against religious people.Apollo The Logician (talk) Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is who calling who what? People usually self-identify with certain beliefs and non-beliefs, so it is unclear you are asking with that. As for "the fact that atheists have discriminated against religious people", I have no doubt some have - they have also discriminated against other atheists, and against genders, and against sexual identities, against races, and against anything else that can be discriminated against. They are no different that anyone else in that respect. So I'm not sure what you are getting at. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how you are not understanding my point. Why do you want to exclude the atheist label from a section header about atheist discrimination? It's obvious yiou are whitewashing. What did you mean by your comment in your edit summary btw? Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I undid your change of the "Persecution under Communism" header to "Persecution under Communists and atheists". You haven't explained why you added "atheists" to that header. I removed it because it implies that an absence of belief in gods is the cause of persecution. Can you please explain your change? (And I looked up Whitewash (disambiguation), and I assure you I've not cast anyone in a non-white role.) Xenophrenic (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1