User:Farang Rak Tham/Buddhism-related articles

Writing on Buddhism-related articles at Wikipedia frequently leads to discussions on what constitutes secondary sources, reliable sources, and original research with regard to this topic. This guideline offers instruction and advice on these and related problems.

Dharma practice books as sources
Some editors prefer insider sources over outsider sources. According to WP:Neutral point of view, both should be used, for different purposes and for balance.

Dharma books from Buddhist teachers are often not analytical, secondary sources on Buddhism. They often do not show much reflection from an outsider's perspective. Furthermore, Dharma books do usually not provide enough context: they may state that Ven. A or B taught this or that, but they do not explain why he taught that, what that teaching was developed in response to, and how this teaching is applied in Buddhist communities in daily life. This is an example of a difference between a primary- and secondary-source approach to Buddhism, this being primary.

This does not mean that all sources written by a Buddhist are primary or unreliable (reliable and secondary are not synonyms). There is no source that is reliable for all purposes, and no source that is not reliable for some purposes (even if simply for what it's own author believes).

These following can be considered reliable and secondary for most articles on Buddhism:


 * Scholars who are known to be practicing Buddhists, but whose work is published in a publication which is peer-reviewed by scholars. Examples: writers for the Sri Lankan Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, and the research of scholar monks, like Bhikkhu Analayo, who publish in peer-reviewed journals. Another example is the works of the proponents of Critical Buddhism, a highly critical approach initiated by two Japanese scholars from a university of a Buddhist tradition. Keep in mind that  secondary does not mean independent. A person of any religion can write such sources.
 * Opinions given on by reputable translators who have been recognized by a reliable scholarly publisher (for example Bhikkhu Bodhi), by the Pali Text Society).
 * Other Buddhists who write about Buddhism in an analytical, critical way appropriate for a secondary source. Many Buddhist studies or Asian studies scholars—whether Western or Eastern—are also practicing Buddhists, so the contradiction "Western scholars–Asian teachers" often raised in Buddhism-related Wikipedia articles may often not apply to them (but see next section).

From the perspective of a Buddhist practitioner, Wikipedia policies need not be regarded as offensive, since an encyclopedia is by definition a summary of scholarly writing, not a stage for Buddhist teaching, and Buddhist teachers are often quoted by scholars as primary sources anyway. Besides, Buddhist teachers have their own edifying role to play in society, as a teacher in an educational or religious setting, which has a different aim and purpose than an encyclopedia.

Establishing significant viewpoints
In the essay is is stated that "In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject."

This proposal has been written with Christian theological scholars in mind, however, and may not always be applicable to scholarship by experts in Buddhist doctrine. In particular, Buddhism is a much more diverse religion than Christianity, and it is therefore difficult to establish what "significant viewpoints" of large communities or schools are, and what are minority opinions that have little real-world impact. It may therefore be necessary to establish the relevance of a Buddhist opinion on doctrine with reliable, independent sources, such as analysis or frequent citation in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, or in-depth coverage in multiple journalistic publications.

It is also important to keep in mind that a significant opinion on Buddhist doctrine in the English-speaking world may not be significant in other countries. Scholarly sources in English and other Western languages, especially when published by popular publishers like Snow Lion or Wisdom Publications, may be inclined to focus disproportionally on Buddhist traditions which are well-represented and easily accessible in to Westerners, such as Tibetan Buddhism or Zen Buddhism. It may therefore be necessary to use tertiary sources like encyclopedias or university-level textbooks, to establish which views on Buddhist doctrine are prevalent outside of the Western world.

Use of honorifics for Buddhist clergy and teachers
Wikipedia has naming-conventions for religious figures which pertain to several specific Buddhist countries. Honorifics should normally not be used with subjects' names (at their own articles or when mentioned in another); this helps preserve a neutral, encyclopedic tone. (Honorifics can be topics themselves, either in an article or as the topic of an article.) This approach, however, may create problems with regard to several Buddhist cultures. Examples: In Myanmar, people do not have surnames in the Western sense, so leaving out an honorific can make that person difficult to distinguish from others with the same name if the context is not clear. In Thailand, family names exist, but are not much used in daily life, as they are often very lengthy. In such cases, honorifics may be used sparingly, especially if they are intrinsically connected with the person's name and only indicate a profession (e.g., monk, teacher).

Use of Indic languages
Following scholarly conventions, Sanskrit, Pāli, and other Indic languages should be written with all diacritical marks following IAST conventions: saṇgha (Pāli) or saṁgha (Sanskrit), not sangha. Consistency in writing should be followed. Within the same article, try not to use both saṁgha and saṃgha, even if both are correct. It should be noted, however, that many scholars do not apply diacritics to words that are in common usage in the English-speaking world, such as Nirvana and karma.

Unless an article deals only with Theravādin or Mahāyāna topics, it is good practice to use both Sanskrit and Pāli words. Depending on which tradition is most relevant to the subject, one language can be used in brackets. Even better, use English terms and put both Pāli and Sanskrit in brackets.

In infoboxes on Buddhist doctrine, Indic languages should be given preference to vernacular languages.

There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any Indic language script.

Capitalization of doctrinal terms
The Manual of Style states that: "Doctrines, philosophies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems of thought and practice, and fields of study are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name." In articles on Buddhism, this holds as well. Please note that the word used for the teaching of the Buddha (Dharma, Dhamma, is capitalized as a proper noun), as distinct from the common noun usage of dhamma for 'mental qualities' and other meanings.

Biographies part of WikiProject Buddhism
Normally, the mere fact that someone is Buddhist is not enough for the article to be included in the WikiProject Buddhism. A significant role in Buddhist history or contemporary study or practice of Buddhism should first be shown.

Quoting traditional texts
In some Buddhist traditions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, traditional-style exegetic commentaries typically consist of a large number of quotes from other texts, with comments by the author. Some Wikipedia editors have inappropriately tried to mimic this style of writing at Wikipedia. This is to be avoided, per, WP:Neutral point of view, and

Article categories
Although many scholars do not think of mythology as necessarily fictitious, care should be taken in using categories like "Buddhist mythology" for subjects the historical facts of which are disputed. Using such a category can subtly introduce a non-neutral point of view which is not supported by reliable sources. This holds unless there is broad agreement among reliable sources that the subject is legendary or mythological in nature.