Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page relates tothe region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
This template falls within the scope ofWikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing withBuddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChina related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJapan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like toparticipate, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project, participate inrelevant discussions, and seelists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofNepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page and add your name to themember's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofatheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit theproject page.
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or seeinfo box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members ofAtheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generatingneologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (seedeletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
The key concepts section is too large. I'm going to go through it and pick out some of the terms which only apply to specific sects (i.e. satori and kensho in Zen, Bardo in Tibetan Buddhism, etc..).☯Zenwhat (talk)02:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: Currently there is no separate article on Buddhist Dhamma thats why that page redirect to Dharma. Moreover there is no such rule that "we provide the basic links without redirect". --Human3015Send WikiLove17:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: I'm unclear on the reason or advantage to creating a redirect on a navigation box "because it's Pali". Yes, but what about the vast majority of publications that use dharma? At leastpipe the link if you're going to be inexplicably insistent on this for some reason.Ogresssmash!17:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: We can get sources for both terms, but when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism thenPali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism. "Dharma" is general term for concept of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and some other sects. --Human3015Send WikiLove18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: Yeah no, we should absolutely not prise Pali, why would we do that? I'm not sure whydhamma specially identifies Buddhism, asJainism is noted for its preference for the use of Prakrit and uses the worddhamma all the time. In addition, the Pali and Jain terms are often identical: terms like anagarika and jina and buddha are used by both, as is the phrase "teratana" (Three Jewels) and many, many other terms.
Also, the earliest Buddhist schools usedSanskrit and Prakrits; some of our oldest texts are in Gandhari Prakrit and others are in Sanskrit; the Prakrit Pali doesn't appear until very late in the historical record. The earliest Buddhists in Sri Lanka were not Theravada, or at least a majority non-Theravada; the Dharmaguptaka school that exists in China received itsupasampada lineage for women from Sri Lanka, and there was a large contingent of Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhists and inscriptions in bothElu and Sanskrit appear in the buildings of the oldest sects there, which were wiped out by governmental fiat in the middle ages.
In addition, Sanskrit appears as the scholarly form for the majority of Buddhists. So there's zero reason to prioritise Pali in particular.
Also, some of the general Buddhism pagesare in Pali, like the words for monks and nuns,bhikkhu andbhikkhuni, and others are in Sanskrit, likeśrāmaṇera andśrāmaṇerī. So I still don't understand your position that somehow the Pali form is special. At all. But at leastpipe it if you are going insist on this.Ogresssmash!18:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress:this is prayer in Buddhism. You can get "n" number of sources for this basic prayer which shows three pillars of Buddhism mainly "Buddha", "Dhamma" and "Sangha". Section in template mentioning these three pillars. So we should write "Dhamma". It is not template of Hinduism. Though in modern world concept of "Dhamma" and "Dharma" is interchangeble, but as I said, here we should write according to Buddhist perspective. --Human3015Send WikiLove18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a non-discussion. You can find an infinite number of sources for "dhamma", but it boils down to your personal preference. Why does this discussion, an dthis kind of arguments, sound so familiair?Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Human3015: I feel like maybe you are undereducated in Buddhism, because that's aTheravada refuge-taking from a website about aTheravada temple. When I recited it along with worshippers in about a dozen countries in East Asia, do you know what recited?Buddhaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi. Dharmaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi. Sanghaṃ śaraṇaṃ gacchāmi. That's Sanskrit, because that's what Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism use. Your attempt to divide the world into Hindu v. Buddhist v. Jain by sorting some groups into Sanskrit and others in Pali is both your personal opinion andtotally not supported by the sources. For example, here is the extremely highly-regardedPrinceton Dictionary of Buddhism: uses dharma throughout, uses dhamma a limited number of times in reference to specifically Theravada names and places. Your argument that Wikipedia should decide to change the usage of the field because dhamma is Pali is nonsensical.
@Joshua Jonathan: I don't understand his argument, but I just asked he at least pipe this nonsense. Redirects in templates is just plain bad form and I didn't want to argue, but then he started in with this "Wikipedia should set policy to separate Buddhism from other faiths".We don't set scholarly policy.Ogresssmash!19:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 writes"when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism then Pali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism." Is this a serious comment, let alone "argument"? "Dhamma" isonly being used in Theravada; the term "dharma" is abundantly being used in Buddhist literature.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I will not mind if you people talk in more civil manner, so there are many schools, comment of Ogress shows he is "preferring" word of his choice. If you think that "Dhamma" is exclusively used in Thervada then I think it do needs separate article than just redirect.--Human3015Send WikiLove19:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, why would you assume I am a man? My name isOgress. Second, I'm not preferring anything, I'm using the Wikipedia-decided page name. Did you miss the part where I originally said, "whatever, just pipe it so it's not a redirect"? However, I'm not well pleased with your decision that one form is preferential to usealways, a position I am strongly opposed to. I make an effort to Palicise pages about the Theravada tradition, piping links as appropriate. I work on many Theravada pages and I use the Theravada terms there. But this is a navigation tool, not an article, and our article is located atdharma. Your insistence on making it a redirect is predicated on a terrible premise and I'mgoing to call you out for that terrible idea. The premise isso terrible you have even piqued the interest of another editor. It's completely against the principles of Wikipedia, I don't understand how you can miss that.
Third, now you are being unfair and painting yourself as some kind of martyr falling on your sword of dhamma. Don't be ridiculous and dramatic, we're not arguing anything vaguely similar to what you are heroically taking a stand about.Ogresssmash!19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: "Wikipedia decided page"Dharma is notBuddhism specific, it involves mention of all related religions, if it would have been special page on Buddhist concept ofDhamma then your claim was worth. IfDhamma is used in Thervada and you are rejecting it then on which basis we are accepting term "Dharma" used by other sects? And it would be better if we discuss "contribution" and not "contributor", if you continue to be "Ogressive" then there is no use of our discussion. I have to seek forWP:DRN. --Human3015Send WikiLove19:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 (talk·contribs) You can't come at me with rhetoric about how Wikipedia needs to usedhamma overdharma because we need to separate the Hindus from the Buddhists and not expect to get a reply. Theonly thing I said to you that could be construed as a personal comment was that youmisgendered me and that you are being overly dramatic by asking when we are going to move a page from the Pali form. You obviously chose to ignore where I pointed out Wikipedia pages are sometimes Pali and sometimes Sanskrit andgave examples, you chose to ignore my multiple comments stating "whatever, just pipe it so it's not a redirect",you are making a tremendous and excited fuss at being called out for bad Wikipedia practices.
I'll try again: your alleged scholarship is beyond shoddy on this topic and you are making an argument that is against Wikipedia premises:"when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism then Pali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism." That is what you wrote.Ogresssmash!20:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: How I will know your gender? You are not delclared your gender on your user page. Or is it even necessary to discuss these gender issues here? What makes difference if you or me is girl or boy? I usually refer everyone with "he/him" unless user has "girlish name" or gender is declared on userpage. And "Ogress" boyish name. But why we are discussing it?? If in any case you belongs to certain sect of "Buddhism" then it may not good to discuss this issue with you, because you will not accept any other stand. (like in India-Pakistan debates, both parties don't change their untill they get blocked or topic banned). So it will be better to ask opinion from apparently non-Buddhist editors, andWP:DRN will be nice board for that. And please Ogress, don't use words "martyr" etc for me, I'm not fighting for any philosophy, I am non-Buddhist, non-religious. Don't start categorizing me. --Human3015Send WikiLove20:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just found themeaning ofOgress. And other names you mentioned are female names. Anyway, I just want to say you one thing, many users have experience with you that you have very aggressive and owner kind approach in debate. Here also you used words like 'Nonsense' 'ridiculous' etc. Many times our username do makes impact on our behaviour, like meaning of your username is "Human eating monster". Your words will not make any impact on me because now I'm enough experienced and I am dealing with many kinds of editors with such aggressive behaviour and I'm used to it, I can handle such situations. But when you use such words or such attitude for new users then it will just discourage them, I have seen you are talking in such language with new users too. New users thinks that these old users are employees of Wikipedia or admins and our contribution is not welcomed on Wikipedia. At least while dealing with new editors, if they have done any good faith edit, you should revert it if it don't fits in our policies but in polite way. --Human3015Send WikiLove20:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure tone policing will get you everywhere when you are arguing contrary to Wikipedia's very standards. You repeatedly ignore myactual words and then accuse me of things I have specifically written the opposite about. "[M]any users have experience with you that you have very aggressive and owner kind approach in debate". Oh really? Go on. Have you got secret meetings then to discuss the depredations of the Ogress, who stated you should perhaps pipe the Pali word you insist must be used because of some unreasonable reason? After all, I certainly accused you of being biased. Wait, no; that was you: "If in any case you belongs to certain sect of 'Buddhism' then it may not good to discuss this issue with you, because you will not accept any other stand."
As a final note in this ridiculous saga, my name is Ogress afterHariti, a baby-eating ogress who the Buddha taught compassion. So yes, my name means "monstrous woman".Ogresssmash!22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's repeat the arguments by Human3015:
"when we are writing in perspective of Buddhism then Pali should be preferred. In Buddhist literatures we can get only "Dhamma". So we should write according to Buddhism."
"If you think that "Dhamma" is exclusively used in Thervada then I think it do needs separate article than just redirect."
My comments:
Why should Pali be preferred?
Why should there be a separate article on the Buddhist usage of the term "dharma"?
Regarding preferred titles and names:
WP:TITLE says"Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent" Especially "Naturalness" applies here:"The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English."
WP:COMMONNAME:"some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
Google:
Google Web: dharma 39.100.000, dhamma 1.370.000
Google Books: dharma 27.000, dhamma 3.340
Google Web: dharma Buddhism 1.150.000, dhamma Buddhism 850.000
Google Books: dharma Buddhism 6.350, dhamma Buddhism 2.550
I'd like to restate that 1. we vary between Pali and Sanskrit in general Buddhism article titles already;bhikkhu andbhikkhuni are two prominent examples of Pali titles for crucial Buddhist terminology. Pali titles arealways used for Theravada-only or Theravada-majority subjects (and Sanskrit for Mahayana/Vajrayana ones) such as theDhammayuttika Nikaya or the names of the suttas of thePāli Canon.Dharma is not one of the ones in Pali.Ogresssmash!15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My question was only that why you are preferring "Mahayana" version over "Thervada" or "Hinyana".? Is there any consensus exists for that? But I don't want to be in this debate as of now, maybe sometime later, I want to work on other issues. --Human3015Send WikiLove15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the whole discussion, but I just want to say that, as a Theravadin myself, I am OK with the use of "Dharma" when it is used in the context of Buddhism in general. I don't see why there should be heated arguments about this. Just use Dharma. Or one can write both at the same time, e.g. "Dharma/Dhamma". There are many Pali words that are used universally in Buddhism in preference to Sanskrit ones, e.g. dukkha, tanha, anatta, etc. and most Mahayanists are OK with that. So, just put "Dharma".eu.stefan (talk)16:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Eu.stefan: Question is not only what should be written, it is also about rationale given by these people. They are calling term Dhamma as "nonsense", "ridiculus" and other hand they calling themself expert in Buddhism. Any neutral Buddhist expert will not use such words for any Buddhist concept or term. It only shows they just hate this term "Dhamma" andthey just don't like it. But as article name is "Dharma" then template should also mention "Dharma". I should have piped that "nonsense Dhamma" as earlier suggested by Ogress. But anyway, I'm in favour of creating separate article on Thervada Dhamma because I do think that "nonsense" things deserves separate articles and should not redirected to sensible things. I don't know when I will create that article but I will request my antagonists to keep on checking my contribution and make sure to mark it for deletion. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015,your behaviour is ridiculous, etc., not the words in question. I am completely certain that no one here thinks the terminology is ridiculous. –Greg Pandatshang (talk)17:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the replies Human3015 is citing is supposed to prove, aside from the fact that I initially told him that his arguments were incoherent and he should at least pipe the link so as to avoid redirects. This has zero to do with "I just don't like it"; the person who doesn't like it isyou. At leastthree other editors have pointed out we use both Pali and Sanskrit forms on Wikipedia for common-use terminology and Dharma is one of the ones that - due toWP:COMMONNAME - appears in the Sanskrit form. When Ican work out what you are saying it is to accuse me of anti-Theravada bias, which is, as you observe I have said, a ridiculous accusation.Ogresssmash!19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understood, we can leave this matter now, I should have understand that article name is "Dharma" so template should also have "Dharma". Anyway, only concern here is the kind of discussion we had, specially it was having personal attacks, accusations, off-topic discussions etc. Before this discussion started Ogress and Jonathan were my Wikifriends and we generally had good relations on Wikipedia. But anyway, I will only suggest that we can forget whatever accusations or personal attacks we made on each other and we can continue to edit Wikipedia in nice atmosphere without keeping any bad faith. --Human3015Send WikiLove19:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
