Category talk:Buddhist martyrs

Untitled
See also Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_29

Proposition renaming to "Buddhist martyrs"
This is an invitation to reconsider the title for this category. 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 and used among both Japanese (See: "殉教者 (junkyōsha)", translated as "martyr", especially within Nichiren circles) and English-speaking Buddhists..

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)
 * Oppose 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 and the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism do not mention the term at all, and the Pali-English Dictionary 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)
 * Re: the first objection, please read the text beneath the search bar on the main page here.
 * Also consider that Chinese Wikipedia uses the equivalent term for zh:Category:佛教殉道者 (fójiào xùndàozhě "Buddhist martyr"), and the Japanese Wikipedia page considers 補陀落渡海 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 ja:Category:殉教者 ("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)


 * 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 (UTC)


 * I see now you have opened another discussion on the CfD platform. Next time, please let me know as well. Copying this discussion over there, and proposing to continue over there.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)