Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 29 July 31 >

July 30[edit]

Category:Buddhists that died for their religion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 12:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I understand that's there's been contention here about using the term "martyr" in Buddhism, which seems unfounded. It's already an established term within English-language Buddhist academia such as the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism[1] and used among both Japanese[2] (See: "殉教者 (junkyōsha)", translated as "martyr", especially within Nichiren circles) and English-speaking Buddhists.[3].

For the sake of brevity and consolidation, it seems out of place to have this particular category stand out in such a way from other religious traditions featured on Wikipedia. --Invokingvajras 23:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. The current name is just a slightly awkward, and obvious, circumlocution for "martyrs", and fits exactly the definition of martyrdom in the first sentence of the martyr article. Afaict, the original CfD relied on two claims: martyrdom is foreign to Buddhism, and martyrdom is understood differently in Buddhism. The second is not a reason to change the name; the first is a reason to question the existence of the category, not its name. Based on Invokingvajras's sources it seems fair to say that the category should exist, so give it the obvious name. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, I have moved the CfD tag from the category talk page to the category main page. This discussion should not be closed within 7 days from now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is the definition of martyrdom. Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am moving this from the talk page of the category. Sorry for the length, but the discussion has been quite extensive there, and I am copying both sides of the argument:
Keep based on arguments I have provided in the previous discussion:
The concept martyr is alien to Buddhist doctrine, and hardly occurs in relevant scholarship. Standard reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Buddhism[4] and the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism[5] do not mention the term at all, and the Pali-English Dictionary[6] has one passing mention of the word, which is Greek and only mentioned for etymological reasons, with no bearing on Buddhist doctrine. The concept that a good Buddhist should give his life for his religion is known, but it is differently understood than in Christianity, and I wonder whether it is useful and correct to use Christian terminology to describe another religion.
I find Invokingvajras' arguments unconvincing. First of all, the first source he uses is inaccessible, as it seems to be behind a paywall. The second source is very specific to one particular tradition of Buddhism, only found in Japan. The third source is about political history and US–Vietnam relations, and is irrelevant in this context. The argument that the category name stands out from others is not necessarily a fault, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Invokingvajras would have to be more specific, and provide examples as evidence. With regard to the sources referred to, Invokingvajras needs to be more transparent as to why he has chosen these sources, and not others. As it stands, the argument he provides is weak with random sources provided as meager evidence.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the first objection, please read the text beneath the search bar on the main page here[7].
Also consider that Chinese Wikipedia uses the equivalent term for (fójiào xùndàozhě "Buddhist martyr"), and the Japanese Wikipedia page considers a form of 捨身 (shashin or "discarding the body", which includes acts self-immolation and may be understood as the Sanskrit ātmaparityāga, meaning "self-sacrifice"). It is also listed under ("martyr"), which suggests that this is an issue with language. If East Asian Buddhists are comfortable equating the terms, then I think it would be most respectful and responsible to accept that. Otherwise, based on Farang Rak Tham's argument, the term "martyr" should only be applied to Christianity, which would render all other sub categories (Category:Hindu martyrs, Category:Pagan martyrs, etc.) obsolete.
As it is suggested, there's an enormous sum of Asian Buddhist concepts, terms, and ideas that have yet to be explored in the English-speaking world and especially on an ever-growing Wikipedia. Sources such as the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism and the Encyclopedia of Buddhism (which does in fact mention the "martyrdom" of Silla's Ich’adon) are standard in that they are elementary, and are best used as supplementary materials in Buddhist studies rather than representative of its whole. --Invokingvajras 17:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing up your argument, but I am afraid it does not hold. The use of Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias, as well as some East Asian language sources to make a point on what terms should be used in English language does not make much sense. We use English-language reliable sources (not Wikipedias) to determine what terminology should be used, not Japanese or Chinese. To argue that English language sources are not representative of Asians is an outdated and misleading argument—many Asian Buddhist scholars write in English, and much of English language Buddhist scholarship is written by Asians. Furthermore, you only talk about East Asians, which is only one part of the (Asian) Buddhist world. Your suggestion that the Princeton Encyclopedia of Buddhism and Buswell's Encyclopedia of Buddhism are sources that are not important, seems to me rather unfounded. These sources are widely used, recently published, and their publishers have a very good reputation.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:16, 2 August 2019
  • Comment, this is more a discussion about linguistics than about Buddhism. If we agree that "martyr" = people who died for their religion (rather than "martyr" = Christians who died for their religion) then the rename is in order. Looking at the article Martyr it seems there is consensus that the word martyr may apply to any religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is more a discussion about linguistics than about Buddhism Naming an article has inevitably to do with linguistics.
  • If we agree that "martyr" ... any religion. Well, we don't agree. Using another Wikipedia article as evidence will not be sufficient evidence. We need reliable sources in English language to confirm the use of the word martyrs in Buddhism, and I haven't seen much of such confirmation yet. I have provided evidence to the contrary using such sources.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Left in China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 9#Category:New Left in China

Category:Academic journals associated with Catholic University of America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To conform to naming conventions in this category tree. Randykitty (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Industry trade groups by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To follow Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_29#Category:Trade_association Rathfelder (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, is also a case of WP:C2C per Category:Trade associations. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support following up what I think was a consensus on one national category. Care should however be taken not to apply this to rename the national category for any country where the term may bot be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hixploitation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seldom-used neologism, contains an offensive pejorative, and there is no reasonable criteria for deciding what to include and what to exclude (unlike the case with Blaxploitation, sources are unlikely to use this term to describe an individual film). Please note the 2017 deletion of Hixploitation. Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 03:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To summarize the PROD concern for the article, it was an unreferenced neologism for a genre not recognized by reliable sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German writers by federal state[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 9#Category:German writers by federal state

Category:Secular critics of Islam[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this is simply a case of WP:OCMISC, containing all left-over critics of Islam after diffusing by religion as in e.g. Category:Christian critics of Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:OCMISC. Jayjg (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - especially because many of the articles in this category (such as Gavin McInnes, Léon de Jong, Cal Thomas etc) have no connection to secularism. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:OCMISC does not apply, as secularity is a clear characteristic and not "everyone else". For navigation, it is really helpful to distinguish between the different kinds of critics of Islam, and "secular critics" is a meaningful and useful division. On Inter&anthro's point, the misuse of a category does not defeat its purpose. The way these sub-categories are being deleted, we seem to be heading towards one vast category of little usefulness. Moonraker (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So which articles specifically discuss secularism? Besides, if the amount of articles in the parent category is a problem it may be more useful to split by nationality. Many people in these categories are politicians who are mainly relevant in their own country. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malaysia Open Grand Prix Gold[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same tournament. The Malaysia Open Grand Prix Gold renamed to the Malaysia Masters in 2014. So, it doesn't need to separate the category. Stvbastian (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To clear confusion with Malaysia Open. Griff88 (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Islamic televangelists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename Since evangelism is a concept from Christianity, not Islam, this category should be renamed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_30&oldid=910062038"