Talk:Deutsche Buddhistische Union: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

== Critique of DBU ==
In an article published in the Buddhist magazin Ursache\Wirkung (No. 115, 2020) it has been worked out that the claim of DBU to represent the whole of Buddhism in Germany was highly pretentious.The author argues that the total number of Buddhists in Germany counts 270,000 (whereof 140,000 are of Asian origin). Compared with these figures, the DBU has only 15,000 members, i.e. less than 5% of all the Buddhists in the country.[1] He relies on statistics of the Religious Studies Media and Information Service. (REMID) Actually these figure are based on information provided by DBU and accepted by REMID only.[2] The author also criticizes the predominant role of Tibetan-buddhist communities in the DBU.[3] Further points of critism raised by other authors concern the inadeqaute dealings with cases of sexual abuse in membership communities of the DBU and the ambivalent role of a contact person for victims of sexual abuse. (October 4,2024)[4] as well as the critique of financial intransparencies, made public in an Open Letter submitted by five members and functionaries of the this institution on January 24, 2025.[5]

I’m moving the section that was added last month (as in the German Wikipedia) by user:Johann von der Ackerwinde to the talk page. For context:
The criticism referred to here is essentially that of a person named Hendrik Hortz. He works with or for the Buddha Foundation. In the first source of the criticism, the way the DBU treated this Buddha Foundation is being criticized. The editor of the magazine in which the text was published is Hortz. The second source of the criticism is Hortz’s blog, and the third source is a protest letter from five DBU members, including Hortz. Apart from Hortz’s e-magazine, what is being referred to here has not been reported in the German media at all.
=> I am almost certain that what we’re seeing here is a personal feud of a small association against the DBU (=the German umbrella organization of Buddhists in Germany) being carried into Wikipedia. DaWalda (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to move this critical part of the article to the talk page was inappropriate and based on a biased view. To claim that the background of this entry is “a personal feud of a small association against the DBU” is a bold and unfounded insinuation. As a matter of fact, the critique of the German Buddhist umbrella organization (DBU) refers to facts and figures based on REMID, an institution providing official statistical figure on German religious institutions. The referred article by Hans-Guenter Wagner, written 2020 and published in the Austrian Magazine “Ursache\Wirkung”, refers to these figures and criticizes, among other issues, the fact that DBU with only 15,000 member claims to be to represent the whole Buddhism in German with about 270,000 believers. The treatment of the “Buddha Foundation” is only a very minor aspect of Wagner’s article.

To assume a “Mr. Hortz” is the big mastermind behind this entry sounds like a theory of conspiracy. Assessing the opinions of authors based on who are the editors of journals they publish, or even the publishers or groups to which the publishing houses belong to, would set up completely new editorial standards of Wikipedia.

Further sources of the removed part of article are an Open Letter, written by five former members and functionaries of DBU, published on various internet channels, and another published article dealing with a case of sexual abuse and the cover-up strategies performed by DBU representatives. There has also been broad discussion about this case on several forums of the internet.

To summarize, there is open and recorded criticism on the institution which is described in this article. Wikipedia article should be objective and must not be a forum for self-expression or self-glorification of institutions functioning as their PR tools.

Thus, this part of the article should be restored. Johann von der Ackerwinde (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not difficult to assess. Hortz’s blog is definitely a source with an apparent conflict of interest; the magazine Ursache\Wirkung almost certainly as well. The open letter has no place as a source in Wikipedia in any case, unless it has been covered by reputable sources, which it has not. The fact that, according to DBU and REMID, there are only 15,000 members in the DBU (not “are represented by it”) can be stated in the article if anyone deems this necessary — but sourced to DBU and REMID, which are clearly the better references here than Ursache\Wirkung. DaWalda (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this part of article, there is among other sources made reference to an article written by Hans-Guenter Wagner and published in the magazine Ursache\Wirkung (printed and e-version), a magazine with an ISSN number and publishing history of more than 25 years. It is neither a part of “Hortz’s blog” nor influenced by Hortz,unless you insinuate that an inderpendent researcher with a long list of publications conducted here commissioned work. I cannot see any “apparent conflict of interest”. The comparison of the number of DBU members and the total figure of Buddhists in Germany simply indicates a huge discrepancy between the representation claim of this institution and the reality. These are facts worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article dealing with this institution, in order to create an undistorted picture. I have got the impression that behind the stage there are members of DBU or affiliates trying to whitewash their institution and to obstruct an objective view by all means. Johann von der Ackerwinde (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that this section as suggested violates WP:UNDUE (unless a major impact of Hortz’ statements on the general perception of BDU or elements of public discourse in general would be shown).

By the way: The suggestion, as made by JvdA, that people opposing a change somehow are ” members of DBU or affiliates trying to whitewash their institution” and so forth by the way is a typical sign of somebody being too far down the rabbit hole to still make objective statements on the subject matter. I’ve seen this too many times, somebody with virtually no history joining with a clear personal issue they want to settle, and then feeling surrounded by the Big Conspiraty at Wikipedia (TM) when people disagree mostly on technical terms. I would suggest to JvdA to first have a good look around how Wikipedia works before trying to crash through walls Kool Aid style. —131Platypi (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]