December 2006 (UTC) 

 ::I salute Peter jackson's efforts to make this article more relevant to modern Buddhism.  However, I'm not sure that changing the terminology illuminates more than it confuses. Readers who are familiar with a few paragraphs worth of information before coming to Wikipedia will be expecting to see terms like "Mahayana". The basic problem is that we have three phyla, so to speak, looking at Buddhism historically (Vajrayana, non-tantric Mahayana, and Nikayan or so-called Hinayana Buddhism), and we have three clusters of types of on-the-ground Buddhism, looking at Buddhism as it is exists within society today (Tibetan Buddhism, East Asian Buddhism, and Theravada). These three phyla and three clusters correspond closely to each other at present, but they are not identical. I'm not sure what the best way of arranging information about them is. Perhaps we can arrange the paragraphs so that the modern types are subsections of the historical phyla? Like so (in no particular order): 

 ::*Mahayana 
 ::**East Asian Buddhism 
 ::*Vajrayana 
 ::**Tibetan Buddhism 
 ::*Nikaya Buddhism 
 ::**Theravada 

 ::—· 22:29, 19