Talk:Yama

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Low‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 24 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Yama (Hinduism) to Yama. The result of the discussion was moved.

It is self-evidently inconsistent for an article on Yama, who will always remain first and foremost a Hindu/Vedic deity, to be represented by a picture of a Buddhist statue. While I do not have a public domain picture on me, I am tempted to remove the Buddhist one simply for its inappropriateness to the article. However, I'll abstain. I hope someone does something about this. --69.203.80.158 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted a question in the reference desk expressing confusion about why "collyrium" is used as a comparison for Yama, and characterized the term as meaning "eyewash". I am reposting my reply to that question below. Basically the word collyrium is not clear and as my comments below explain the likely comparison is to a type of black eye cosmetic.

The English phrase “fierce and dark like a heap of collyrium” is attributed in the article to the Garuda Purana (2.5.147-149) which is a Sanskrit text. I don’t have a copy of the text on hand, but the concept translated as “collyrium” is a common image. Sanskrit words for “collyrium” are listed in Apte's "The Student's English-Sanskrit Dictionary" p. 64. Three alternatives are given. अंजनं (añjanaṁ) in general refers to an ointment, but specifically it is a type of cosmetic used to blacken the eyelashes. Chemical composition is pulverized antimony, and the use of antimony as a cosmetic is mentioned in the Wikipedia article for that substance (Macdonell’s “A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary”, p. 5). कज्जलं (kajjalaṁ) is lamp-black, and collyrium is prepared from it (Macdonell, p. 61). नेत्ररंजनं (netrañjanaṁ) is eye-salve (netra means eye) (Macdonell, p. 147).

So the word that is probably used in the original text was either añjanaṁ or kajjalaṁ, both of which are black types of netrañjanaṁ. Yama is associated with the color black, so the image of blackness is intended. I have noticed the use of the English word collyrium in translations of other texts that use it in the sense of a medicinal eye-salve (as opposed to a cosmetic) but in a different context. The condition of being unable to see the reality of the world around us is sometimes compared to the medical problem of a partially-blind person or someone with vision trouble. The use of eye-salves for medicinal purposes to improve sight is used as an analogy for the use of spiritual study to help remove weakness of inner sight. The specific medical condition sometimes mentioned for this analogy is तिमिरं (timiraṁ) which means “darkened” or “clouded”eyesight. Buddhipriya (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of the reference desk question another editor made this point: "The translation appears to be by Jagdish Lal Shastri and is almost certainly copyrighted, so editors probably shouldn't be blithely adjusting its language (and the article needs to credit the source)." Deor (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I think the whole quote should be removed and replaced with something more clear, with a citation. I will see if I can find something. I have located an electronic version of the source text for the Garuda Purana and will look at it in the next day or two. http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/garup2_u.htm Buddhipriya (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another detail: The article cites 2.5.147-149, the source the other editor provided translates 2.6.147-149. In the online text I found for GarP 2.6.144 is the end of 2.6 so there is no 2.6.147-149 in that edition, a common problem with versification of these texts. Buddhipriya (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a couple of references related to the iconography of Yama that may be more clear on color issues that the quote we have now that uses the term "collyrium". If there is no objection I will replace that quote with some other cites. I will probably cite from these more than once, so I will set it up for Harvard citations unless there is objection to using that method. I also notice that there is currently only one actual note in the References section, with two general books listed but not cited. I believe the best approach is to have a separate section for Notes if we do move to a more heavily footnoted format. I would like to change the structure of the citations to move in that direction. Buddhipriya (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just added this unsourced remark, which may be true, but can we have a citation? "However, in other tales, such as the tale of Vyasaraj, Yama is described as a handsome man whose skin is fair as the stars at night, and eyes as dark as the deepest well." Buddhipriya (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no reference to the yima of the Avesta? He is identical with Yama! Also according to Harivamsa Purana chapter nine Yama was a brother of manu vaivasvatha, who is also an important person but not mentioned in the article.--87.178.210.106 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dharma (Hinduism). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is he equivalent to Hades? Also, he seems to be the same figure from Buddhism, as both are judges of the dead, and reside in Naraka/the Narakas Booger-mike (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can Yama be associated with a planet that wasn't discovered until the 1930s? Notice that the source has no Sanskrit word for the planet. 24.185.137.174 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vidura and Dhritarashtra.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.2 Billion Hindus on this planet and we are going to call their faith and love a "myth"? There was really no other word? Insulting and not objective. I thought this was a wiki not a place to belittle the faith of others. Many Hindu and Buddhist pages contain this word "myth" and it's very insulting for people who believe in these things (which is many many many people on this planet). Please let's be more objective and not call these wonderful teachings such demeaning words. Thank you 🙏🧡 StopSayingMyth (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myth does not imply it's necessarily untrue, and is not demeaning or belittling. See also Category:Creation myths. Many other pages, e.g. Christian pages, also contain the word. Note, your username shows that you are only here to make this meritless complaint, not to help create an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 20:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Now you are demeaning me as a person also? This is not a good response, and shows only that you are biased and defensive. Obviously the staff at wikipedia has some kind of anti-faith bias it seems so I suppose that is it for my donations in the future.

Everyone knows that myth means false and for people with such big vocabulary you ought to be able to find a more appropriate word. Science does not disprove the existence of divine force, and great scientists come in many flavors and many faiths. I don't think a lot of them would appreciate your obvious blatant slander on this page and others, as well as shaming me because I have just created an account. Some of the best contributors of things have to start small with one issue they are passionate about, before they can grow into community members.But go ahead and step on thay StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the word myth in both instances to say story as the Hindu mythology page clearly states that a myth and story are the same word but myth is used to demean and attack people and story is the same word but without the discrimination. This change has been reversed and I would like to appeal it with someone is there a way to do this? StopSayingMyth (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StopSayingMyth, you and the editor who reverted your change have both acted in accordance with the bold, revert, discuss policy. Thank you for not edit warring. You have actually already "appealed" the revert, by opening a discussion here on the talk page. If consensus cannot be reached from that discussion, there are other dispute resolution methods available, but it's best to cross that bridge when you get to it. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the discussion makes zero logical sense.

We are open to using any word which is not demeaning, but what is the other argument?

The opposition is suggestion we have to use demeaning words?

If the opposition only wishes for accuracy then by their own accounts story or account are as accurate. So really what is the argument for offending 1.2 billion people? StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that someone has already objected to a change of this sort in the previous discussion started here by the OP, just above this one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, consensus is to change the word.......... StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah wrong talk page sorry haha. I am also arguing currently on some other myth pages as this is a topic which personally is meaningful to me.

Anyways the conversation is simple. I wish for any word which cannot be used to discriminate (story, belief, tradition, etc). These are all equally factual and therefore you would agree with me. The only reason to defend this one specific word above all the other synonyms is because you want to discriminate. So please be honest StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to discriminate against anyone, and you should be careful about casting aspersions, which is a form of personal attack. I'm trying to explain to you what the rules of this community are, and why you will not succeed in what you're trying to do. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't want discrimination I suppose we are on the same side. Let's change the word myth to one of it's synonyms and be done with it StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be against Wikipedia's policies as decided upon by the Wikipedia community.

I suppose I'll ask one more time, then do so myself. Please drop the stick. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have valid points and they have not been refuted. I have taken philosophy course, I know what an argument is and how to refute them and when I am wrong. May I suggest you check out the article on Gaslighting, provide a valid refutation, or just admit that I am the one who is correct StopSayingMyth (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication of a consensus in favor of a change on this talk page. 'Accounts' is clearly the wrong word in any case. MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been arguing against discriminatory language.

"I don't wish to discriminate against anyone" was said by another.

I have interpreted this as reaching consensus.

If accounts is not a word you like pick from +20 other synonyms for the word "myth" which cannot be used to demean others. I await your synonyms StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly misinterpreted that comment. I do not believe that the word "myth" demeans anyone. I have seen no evidence that it does. Since it is the best word and the one used by the preponderance of academic sources, that is the term we should continue to use. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources use many terms so let us use those other synonyms. I will give an example to show my position because you are being reasonable so I will try to be also.

Story about Lemons means Story about Lemons

Myth about Lemons means False Story about Lemons

This is my issue, and the issue of many commenters. I hope this example can help you understand my position better. Thank you StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If two words mean different things, they aren't synonyms. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Synonym as I linked you earlier. It states "A synonym is a word, morpheme, or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word". For myth and story they are synonyms as a myth is a false story so these are nearly the same word except the small difference is one can be used to demean others and the other is much harder to do so StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point is that if these words were truly synonyms you wouldn't have any reason to argue that we shouldn't use one in particular. MrOllie (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, synonyms can have slightly different meanings. But in this case, the difference in meaning is meaningful enough that it should not be changed. In fact I believe "mythology" carries more weight than "story", and is in turn more respectful of the source material. I really think this is a strange hill to die on considering that. But ultimately, reliable sources call it mythology, so we must do the same. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myth about Lemons means False Story about Lemons - That is not accurate, certainly not as the term is used in anthropology or theology. To quote from our article at Myth : As commonly used by folklorists and academics in other relevant fields, such as anthropology, "myth" has no implication whether the narrative may be understood as true or otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright but that is not how the general public knows the word. When 99.9% of people click on an article about Hinduism and see the word "myth" we all know they think "oh this is one of those dumb old things that ancient people believed like leeches can cure headaches". If I remember correctly a word's definition is how it is commonly used and that is why definitions can change over time. For example the word gender has changed from only mean biological chromosomes to also meaning gender identity. So if the majority of people would read the sentence as "false stories" then this is what the word means StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we follow the sources here and not our personal musings. If you can't support your argument with sources you won't get consensus backing for your proposed changes. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us know 99.9% of people or how they interpret words, but I really don't think you're correct about this. Yes, "myth" can mean "something people believe is true but isn't", as in Mythbusters. But it can also be used in a more general sense, especially w.r.t. religion, as it is here. See also Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Buddhist mythology. I assure you this isn't an attack on Hinduism, by Wikipedia or anyone else. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]