Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity

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

The result was keep. A very complicated issue to resolve, it took looking closely at the article and the previous AfDs as well as what's below to reach a decision. Consensus of discussion is just strong enough to keep. Keep voters offer good, solid evidence for doing so, showing that article has been improving (becoming less POV; the retitling was a huge help) and that reliable and notable sources exist for covering allegations of influence of Buddhism on Christianity; also good is the section about possible influences the other direction.

Delete votes offer little beyond shouting "OR! OR! OR!" without much proof offered. I am also a little disturbed by this idea that, well, the way to improve this article is to delete it and start over again. I'm told they do this on the German Wikipedia; as David Bowie once put it, "They do it over there but we don't do it here". As the keep votes note, the topic is eminently worthy of encyclopedic attention and we have never AFAICR deleted an article just to rebuild it. In its present form, it is beginning to show a lot of promise and might well, once the major cleanup is done and it is fully sourced, be a good candidate for GA status. I do implore the keep voters to continue working on the article, though. Daniel Case 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist influences on Christianity

Buddhist influences on Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is a complete mess, poorly referenced, filled with original research, utterly marred by dubious claims and other such failings. This section is a prime example of what exactly is wrong with this article. This article as it currently stands covers a topic that may well need coverage in Wikipedia. However, it is an unrecoverable mess. The best solution would be deletion and recreation with verifiable information from reliable sources while avoiding original research. Vassyana 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article was recently moved by me to the current title from Christianity and Buddhism. Under that title, it wasAFD'ed with a result of "No consensus". Prior to that, it was AFD'ed under the title Buddhist-Christian parallels with a result of "Keep".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

Previous AfDs:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist-Christian parallels and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christianity_and_Buddhism

• Comment An article on the Parallels between buddhism and christianity might actually be in order, as there are tons of notable authors (even the Dalai Lama I think) who have written on the subject. But influences? Not one of those authors that I can think of suggested even for a second that one directly influenced the other. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Cross-influences are not unlikely as there was a cultural continuum from Iberia to Gandhara until the rise of Islam. The Hellenistic art had formative influnence on all Buddha representations which are known today (watch Ushnisha and Greco-Buddhism) and in Gandhara, where the oldest known reference to Mahayana Buddhism is from even Ancient Greek was spoken. Although there is little known an influence of Buddhism on Hellenistic philosphy is likely and the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Christianity is an accepted fact. --Liebeskind 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I am all for "slash" and "burn" Here. We can recreate this article later. IMO, every vote for "keep, but rewrite" should be interpreted as a "delete" so that bad material doesn't stay here. If someone wants to save this article, he or she should make a rewrite with extensive sources, and I will change my mind. WhisperToMe 02:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --- Good Lord, "bad material" stays here all the time! The paradox of Wikipedia is that this type of article gets deleted... but all the articles about Phil of the Future episodes will probably be kept (see July 9 AfD). So tag this with the disputed label. Similarities between two religions are notable, but that doesn't prove that one influenced the other. As with anything else religious, there is an element of speculation and this has attracted a large share of authors whose theories I don't agree with. But just because I don't agree with the theory doesn't mean that I should pretend that it hasn't been proposed. I disagree that its "poorly referenced" (42 footnotes?) Editing doesn't always have to mean executing. Mandsford 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Check the footnotes and the claims they support. Hardly well-referenced. Quantity does not equal quality and this article is a fine example. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Vassyana 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• N Delete This article is an orgy of original research. All of its notable published sources are about not a Buddhist/Christian interchange of influence, but simply a discussion of the similarities between the the two religions after their establishment. This article takes a collection of sources and uses them to try and prove a theory on the origins and influences of Christianity. An article simply comparing the two religions might be in order, but one pushing the idea that Buddhism was an influence in the formation of Christianity? I don't think so. That is the most insidious violation of NPOV, as it masquerades as being informed and academic, all while trying to push a patently fringe POV.VanTucky ^(talk) 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  I believe the orgy would be at Tantra and Christianity. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Very original research. Calgary 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep

  1) Topic is encyclopedic. despite the fact that the idea that Buddhism influenced Christianity seems like a lot of New Age fringe claptrap. Edward Conze suggested that Hinduism or Buddhism may have influenced Gnosticism. Elaine Pagels acknowledged that the evidence was intriguing but inconclusive.

  Thomas Tweed reports that, between approximately 1879 and 1907, there were a "number of impassioned discussions about parallels and possible historical influence between Buddhism and Christianity in ... a variety of periodicals". However, this interest in parallels and contact between the two religions had pretty much waned by 1906. Many had come to agree with Albert Schweitzer's conclusion that although some indirect influence through the wider culture was "not inherently impossible", the hypothesis that Jesus' novel ideas were borrowed directly from Buddhism was "unproved, unprovable and unthinkable." (Tweed, Thomas (2000). The American Encounter With Buddhism, 1844-1912: : Victorian Culture & the Limits of Dissent. University of North Carolina Press, 280. )

  The point here being that this topic has been discussed since at least the 19th century and people as notable as Albert Schweitzer have seen fit to comment on it, if only to dismiss it.

  2) The article was a huge mess but is improving. Consider, for example, this version from May 8, 2007. An important difference is that the May 8th version basically makes bald assertions that are written from a stance that "Buddhism DID influence Christianity". The current version has been moved towards a more NPOV stance that "Buddhism MAY HAVE influenced Christianity but such theories are marginal, minority POVs based on scant evidence".

  --Richard 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. If the current state of the article is the result of two months of hard work, that only reinforces my belief that the current article is an unworkable mess that needs a mercy killing. Vassyana 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although the article may have stylistic issues, the subject is treated in depth and highly referenced. Unfortunately, the very discussion of this subject (interactions between Chritianity and Buddhism) seems to be disliked by some. PHG 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Acutally, I rather wish Christianity was more influenced by Buddhism, rather than disliking the idea. But my personal wishes aside, the article takes sources solely on a relation between the ideas of the two religions and uses flimsy, fringe historical theories not backed by verification in reliable sources to try and make a theory of buddhist influence on early christianity notable. It just isn't supported by reliable, published sources (refereneces, present here and not in the article, to outdated books from the 18th and 19th centuries notwithstanding). VanTucky ^(talk) 05:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong KeepPer Ricahrd and PHG. The subject deals with theories that are minority view points and largely speculative, but the topic is still encylopedic, and well referenced, with notable acknowlegements of the existence of these speculative theories. I note that Elain Pagels has commented on them, for instance. They are thus notable enough for us to report on them. Lots of new research is being done on the various influences that major religions have had historically on each other as they evolved.Giovanni33 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight - Giovanni, if the arguments are made from people deemed to be non-notable, Wikipedia does not care about their viewpoints. It works like that. "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." - If the authors of the article are deemed to be in a significant minority, then the basis of keeping this is flawed. WhisperToMe 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well-referenced? I'm not sure where people are getting from, considering that almost no information in the article is verifiable in reliable sources, which one would expect from a "well-referenced" article. Vassyana 06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. By the way, I told Shu this: "Don't be afraid to take out sections that cannot be cited - sometimes less is more. Also, Shu, remember that, as per Wikipedia:No original research, that a synthesis of published material to advance a viewpoint is not allowed. Think about the statement and avoid coming to conclusions using published material; instead find reliable, significant sources and simply report about their conclusions." WhisperToMe 06:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Even The Catholic Encyclopedia, which goes to great lengths to deny the relationship between the two religions, covers this topic in depth, and is forced to admit that the Christian story of Barlaam and Josaphat was originally Buddhist. —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is important that wikipedia record the fact that Christianity was strongly influenced by Buddhism, both through the original influence on Greece in the Buddha's time (he sent 60 arahants out in about 587 BC) and later Ashoka's arahants a few centuries later. The similarity of parables and doctrines which are so different from Judaism all atest to this. Likewise, greek civilisation began to flower just 2 years after the Buddha's arahants were sent to the world, and taught such doctrines as the four elements, the turning of the wheel of suffering and so on. Ray Tomes 11:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the deletion policy, editing is an alternative to deletion; and therefore unless anyone can say why the topic is unencyclopaedic, this has to be a keep. Batmanand | Talk 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been moved back to Christianity and Buddhism. Per the undue weight policy, much less attention should be paid to a fringe theory about the origin of Christianity. If the article stays, I vote rewrite. If it moves back, or if its topic is to remain "Buddhist influences on Christianity" regardless of the title, I vote strong delete -- that topic is inherently unencyclopedic, not because of a lack of notbility, but because of a lack of reliable sources. Which is why the article uses primary sources in a way that constitutes OR (per VanTucky) or secondary sources which, at best, would otherwise be considered reliable but which are speculating, or which are simply unreliable. A.J.A. 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic is encyclopedic. Period. Is the article a mess? Yup. WP:SOFIXIT. Bucketsofg 13:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your vote only counts if the topic stays at "Christianity and Buddhism," though. Remember the title WAS "Buddhist influences on Christianity." WhisperToMe 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "My vote only counts if…"?! No, I expect my opinion to be given due consideration in any discussion that I join, as all opinions should be in all discussions. Bucketsofg 12:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is not unsuitable, the article is far from unsavable. In fact, it doesn't seem incredibly far off being good enough at the moment, and we certainly don't delete things just for being not good enough, and AFAICT never have. SamBC 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This well referenced article about a notable topic has twice been placed up for deletion and twice the attempt to remove it failed. Scholars were discussing this since the late 19th century. The content has been the subject of aan ongoing edit war. Editing is preferable to deletion, and the argument that we have to delete it and start creating it again is completely nonsensical. Just keep the good parts and delete the unreferenced or POV or OR parts. There is a long scholarly history of comparative religion, taught at major universities, comparing the doctrines and beliefs of Christianity with those of Buddhism. This is an important and encyclopedic topic, but the article is obviously undergoing a polemic edit war. Those who have studied comparative religion should take a look at the article and use Wikipedia edit policies, and perhaps RFC to straighten out any POV edit warring going on under control using the tools available. Disruptive editors can be controlled via RFC and blocking if necessary. Edison 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your vote only counts if the topic stays at "Christianity and Buddhism," though. Remember the title WAS "Buddhist influences on Christianity." WhisperToMe 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And was moved back to Christianity and Buddhism without discussion or consensus. Let's discuss the title after the AFD is closed. In any event, I dispute the assertion that the opinion (AFD is a discussion, not a vote) only counts if the topic stays at Christianity and Buddhism. --Richard 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Because you had such extensive consensus to move it in the first place, didn't you? It seems you regard consensus as a one way street. In any case, the distinction is a crucial one, because "Christianity and Buddhism" is an encyclopedic article, while "Buddhist influences on Christinity" isn't, as I explained above: there are no reliable sources. You have a reliable source for the Western press talking about it a hundred years ago, but that has no solid connection to what actually happened. Likewise, you don't have notable figures (or non-notable ones; for WP:RS purposes it doesn't really matter) saying anything reliable about it. All you have is sources for much later Westerners contesting how their own origins should be imagined, which is an interesting and notable topic in its own right, but not the topic you chose to associate the article with, and the attempt to make the one into the other will necessarily produce an OR mess. A.J.A. 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Smile. Hey, A.J.A., I knew someone would raise the question of whether the first move by me was with or without consensus. I proposed the move on the Talk Page. After 4 days, nobody had objected so I moved it. Somebody moved it back. Now it's time to discuss the best title for the article (assuming that it survives the AFD which it looks like it will). I will comment that you made a snide remark when I proposed the move which criticized the quality of the article but did not indicate an objection to the move. If you had explicitly opposed the move, I would have held off pending further discussion. We should conduct the rest of this discussion on the Talk Page. --Richard 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
          • My facial expression is none of your business. A.J.A. 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Please keep things polite and on-topic. The question of naming and scope can be sorted out after this AfD closes. Vassyana 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
              • And please assume good faith. The smile was meant to characterize my facial expression as in "I found it wryly amusing that my concern was borne out and maybe I should have been more explicit in what I wrote". I see now that it could also be interpreted as an imperative meaning "You should smile". Well, it's up to you but it probably wouldn't hurt if you did approach these discussions with a smile. Let's keep this collegial. --Richard 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
                • "Keep"? A.J.A. 21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • (Chuckle) Oh, at first I thought you were changing your !vote to "Keep" and was really surprised. Then I realized that you were insinuating that this discussion has not been collegial. Yes, I agree that it has not been as collegial as I would like. Naturally, my perspective is that it is you who has been less than collegial. However, if you believe that I have been uncollegial in any way, feel free to make your case on my Talk Page. --Richard 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup Article is a mess, but topic is notable Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Per user:Richardshusr and user:PHGTaprobanus 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is this even factually accurate?--Sefringle^Talk 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  It is factually accurate that some people have proposed these theories and that the topic is encyclopedic and notable. Some notable people have expounded some of these theories. Other notable people have examined and rejected these theories. Make no mistake about it: these are fringe, marginal theories that are far from the mainstream. However, they are notable enough to warrant coverage in Wikipedia. To the extent that this article presents the theories as facts rather than as theories, the article is broken and needs to be fixed. Deletion, however, is not the answer. --Richard 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep and build. The extent to which the material is fringe varies--the possibility of influence is real enough, but demonstrating the actual effect very much more difficult, and many articles on this general area have been occasions of editor disputes. It is certainly encyclopedia worthy, though hard to handle. DGG (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is obviously notable enough to be encyclopedic, though I agree it is in horrid condition. I'm almost ready to agree with WhisperToMe that perhaps slash and burn is necessary in this case, but WP:SOFIXIT applies too. Keep it and see about having the Buddhism, Christianity, and/or Religion WikiProjects whip it into shape. - RPIRED 00:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per DGG, Viridas, Bucker and others above. Johnbod 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is overwritten and, in fact, still under-referenced (considering its length), but it does discuss points raised by a good number of what appear to be reliable sources. There are a lot of embarrassingly bad aricles on Wikipedia, but this is not one of them. -- Ssilvers 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Modify? So far as I can see, the article has no references to a fairly recent dialogue between Zen and Christianity, referenced in an article named "Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue"(author unknown). Christians influenced by Zen master Yamada Koun in the 70's have spread througout the world, establishing centers as they dispersed. Some of these are Thomas Hand (who died last year; he was at the Mercy Center in San Francisco); Hugo M. Enomaya-LaSalle, who established Shinmeikutsu, a Zen/Christian monastery outside Tokyo about 1975; Robert Kennedy, who was posted to the Northeastern U.S. about two years ago. The article is 28 pages, including 152 references, and I believe you can see it by using Zen-Christian dialogue in a Google search. I hope this doesn't just muddy the water in your discussion. User:Notspecial 13:47, 12 July 2007
• Keep. Notable topic; AfD is not cleanup. —Xezbeth 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this unworkable mess. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This all seems like original research or claims that don't need to be argued about on Wikipedia. If someone wants to write their own book espousing theories, they can. Otherwise, if it was important it would be noted on Buddhism and Christianity pages and that would be sufficient. NobutoraTakeda 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of sources to show this is a valid topic as covered my many above contributors, this is not the place for cleanup. Davewild 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Sometimes it is simply better to start from scratch. There is definitely a need for a comparative article; this is not it. How many times have we seen articles take an agonizingly long time to get in decent shape simply because of the precedent set for the article. My first priority is producing notable articles based upon reputable sources. This can be done with a comparative topic, but it simply would be easier and quicker to start with a tabula rasa. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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