Talk:Bindi (decoration)

Both this and the tilaka article stress that these are not the same thing, but they are described in basically exactly the same way. What is the difference and could someone make this clear in at least one of the two articles? Thanks Prolinol (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would assume that she starts wearing one when she gets married, as the article says that it's worn by married women. Benji 11:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I argue on this point. In Northern India females married or unmarried wears bindis. In fact wearing is not the right word to be used.Kumar Chetan

Bindi is not just a little dot, it is also a weed and a Name or nickname. it is my nickname. my friends nickname is Bidny (her real name is Brittany). if you come and see this discussion please go to the Unicorn page and add to the disscusion and I might see it and be able to reply!

I agree and intend to start a bindi (plant) entry. RevJohn 14:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering if this article is nonsense. My only knowledge of bindis is from Bollywood movies, but ... how is a bindi different from the smudge that people (male and female) get on their foreheads when they visit a temple, or are received as a guest and get smudged from the tray of flowers and lights symbolizing welcome? I dunno if the yoga, ayurvedic, third eye stuff is generally believed, or if the bindi is just a mark either saying "I've been through a religious ceremony" (like Ash Wednesday) or "this is my belief". Don't different shapes and colors of bindis give off different social messages? And how is a bindi related to the three white marks that South Indian Shivaites wear on their foreheads?

And the bit re married women -- isn't that confusing the mark between the eyebrows with the red mark, sindhoor, on the center part of the hair? We need some native informants here! Zora 05:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bindi is not necessarily a religious/married-women thing. Usually, women wear Bindi as they would do other ornaments. Right now, most of the Bindi (also called "Tip" in Bangla) are adhesive versions. But if you are asking about religiou significance of it, I guess somebody from India may cast some light on it. --Ragib 02:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Also, the bit about the bindi being "popular among Russian women" is completely made-up. Never seen it in 30 years living in Moscow, except at costume parties! I'm removing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.5.15 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

For a custom of millions of people, you would think there would be more than just a paragraph on the subject. Every time I hear something about Bindis I hear something different. Some say it has caste significance, some religious, some say it indicates marriage, and even others say it is an old outdated custom with all the significance of an ear ring (by that, just for looks). If any Wiki definition needs analitical explanation, this I am sure qualifies. --209.112.222.98 00:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, we need more info. The web doesn't seem to have much. Is there a forum of South Asian editors where this question could be asked? Zora 00:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

All the usage cited by 209.112.222.98 are correct, Bindis are used for Hindu castes, marriage symbol for married Hindu Women, religious symbol, and also as a body decoration worn by women from almost all religion in South Asia. I can't help with the religious significance since I'm not well-versed in Hindu customs, but for decorative usage of it (along with pictures of Bindis taken off my wife's collection), I can help. Thanks. --Ragib 02:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bindi is also a synonym for Bambaiya Hindi

I'm not familiar enough with the markup to put this in the entry. Would someone whose better at it please do so? --Anniepoo 18:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's OK with me, since a bindi seems to be a subset of tilak. I'd just want a redirect, so that anyone looking for bindi would be taken directly to the tilak article.

I will do what I can with the copyediting, but this is one area of Indian custom where I am quite ignorant, so I'm going to have to rely on other editors to make sure the info is correct. Zora 00:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I Strongly disagree. The article Tilaka is on the Hinduism-related religious significance of the Tilaka symbol, whereas Bindi is mostly an ornamental symbol, used by women regardless of religion. It is ok to have a summarized section on Bindi in the Tilaka article, but at the same time, Bindi should have its own, elaborate article. In South Asia, Bindi is used by Muslim, Buddhist and Christian women in the same way as Hindu women, and the wearing of Bindi has nothing to do with the religious significance, rather it is more of a cultural phenomenon. The merger of these articles would only propagate the fundamentalist notion and fatwas that wearing of Bindi is a Hindu practice (something not shared by the mainstream culture in South Asia). So, these articles are better left as they are now. Thanks. --Ragib 04:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll go with that. As I said, I'm ignorant on this subject, and Ragib impresses me as someone who edits WITHOUT a tin-foil hat. Zora 05:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Agreed with Ragib. Bindi article should have "See also: Tilak" and Tilak "See also: Bindi". -Jan/VEDA, 20/12/2005

well but then the article should say there is a difference. As long as the bindi article says its the same as tilak, and the tilak article says that bindi is just the Hindi term, there is no point in keeping the articles separate. dab (ᛏ) 17:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do understand and appreciate what Ragib means. However, while it may be true that many non-Hindu women of south Asia wear the vermilion mark on their forehead, it is not the case that such usage is known as "wearing the Bindi", while the more emotion-charged use by married Hindu women is known as "wearing the Tilak". If anything, "tilak" has the imagery of use by men, while bindi conjures up a woman. Perhaps we could merge, mention this, and have sections mentioning both occasional use by non-Hindus, and the problems this occasionaly causes. During the heyday of the separatist Khalistan movement in Punjab, Sikh women who sported the Bindi (a pervasive trend) came in for denounciation and even physical assault. Would Ragib agree that merging, with these provisions, would be a good idea? I prefer merging, given the profusion of pages: see Kumkum and Sindoor as well. None of these pages is entirely accurate or comprehensive. Regards, ImpuMozhi 02:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I realize belatedly that the debate dates to several months ago. I propose to effect a full rationalization of all these articles soon. ImpuMozhi 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I put back the merge template, since this question isn't really resolved yet.

I think I'm still in favor of keeping them as separate articles, since the tilak article seems to concern the Hindu meanings, while the bindi article focusses on the fashion uses of the bindi. Given that so many women wear bindis as fashion statements, I think I'd agree with Ragib that the bindi has "escaped" its Hindu origin. Zora 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have just seen this after I put a comment on tilak page. I believe they should be merged and clearly say bindi is not just hindu. We can simply say in the header as "a dot on forehead for relegious or for fashion reasons in south asia and India", and have seperate sections for "relegious significance" and put all hindu information there. It is just confusing and overlapping. It is my opinion, and I can live with either. Mlpkr 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The two are different, a Bindi is NOT a subset of a Tilak. The two are not synonyms in the current real life. The Tilak is the religous of the two and has a different shape, it's put by smearing coloured powder, and can even have rice grains added on. A Bindi now is mostly used for fashion and is even available as a commercial product with stick on adhesive. A Bindi is used only by women, and a Tilak can be on men or women, the shape and significance of the two are vastly different. Haphar 11:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gwen stefani, on various occasions, has been seen with a "bindi" I think, could someone put that in the article.. somehow lol

thanks

Bindis are becoming increasingly popular so listing celebs who were seen with it would be somehow unproductive, imho. One could just say that they are nowadays used as a decoration by Western women, including some celebrities. -Jan/VEDA, 24/03/2006

regarding the sentence: "Some instances of American pop culture make amusing parallels to the bindi's appearance as similar to the laser sight of a sniper rifle." What does it mean? I ask in genuine bewilderment. Also, what are the instances? Are it really worthy of mention? Please clarify. ImpuMozhi 18:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a nonsense and incoherent sentence to me. --Ragib 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, looking at it more closely, I think it means that when someone uses a sniper rifle, the laser sight on the rifle paints a red dot on the area that the bullet should hit (leaving out of account wind and the like). The bindi looks like a sniper dot. That is, if someone is a racist who thinks killing people with bindis is funny. I think that's a racist comment. Zora 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

EXHIBIT A! http://bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/default/public/media/2013/04/19/071813Tsarnaev.jpg 209.172.25.31 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Someone edited the article and replaced all instances of South Asia with Indian sub-continent. South Asia is a more acceptable term, as it doesn't claim the whole sub-continent for one of the five nations that share it. That's aggressive nationalism, and it is NOT OK. Someone also replaced the word Hinduism with "Hindu dharma," which is an Indian locution that would not be understood by most readers. Zora 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd request Bharatveer to provide evidence that the arcane term "Indian subcontinent" is more commonly used for the region in contemporary usage. I looked in google and failed to find any university with a department titled "Indian subcontinent studies" (except for one or two in Australia). However, most of the universities that do have a department on the region, have named it "South Asian studies". I also looked up the usage of the words "Indian subcontinent" versus "South Asia" (excluding the wikipedia mirrors), and South Asia vastly outnumbers the phrase "Indian subcontinent" (the ratio is 40:1). So, unless Bharatveer can show any proof of the prevalence of the term "Indian subcontinent", which seems to be on its way of becoming a thing of the past, I suggest not reverting this article (and others) constantly. Thank you. --Ragib 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you know very clearly,the term "south asia" is a political term that came into existence from the late 50's (or is it 70's) .The term "Indian SUbcontinent" is more correct and apt in this article in every respect.You are being very optimistic when you say , it is going to be a thing of the past.My best wishes for your "beliefs". I have given the reference for the word "dharma".-Bharatveer 05:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it came into use after the Partition, as non-inflammatory. Please stop using a term that will inevitably provoke upset in the citizens of four other nations. South Asia is the term now in use -- even by my Indian friends. Indian sub-continent is primarily used in a geological context, not in a political context. "Indian sub-continent" gets 965,000 google hits and "South Asia" gets 29,800,000 ghits. That's a 30 to 1 ratio. Zora 06:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Instead of removing those valid references, pls give your reasons for that.-Bharatveer 07:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In terminology disputes, ghits are accepted as indicative of popular usage. You are outvoted 30 to 1. Again, you're insisting that we must convince YOU and then refusing to listen. Take care; you have had your three reverts for the 24 hours. Zora 07:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

THis is no terminology dispute.The word "Indian" is more suitable than the american created word "south asia".I have given references for the same.-Bharatveer 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's YOUR opinion. Until I see any proof of Indian subcontinent being more common (rather than the 30 uses of South Asia for each I.S. use), It'll stay this way. Change when you have some numbers to show for it. That you don't like it really isn't an argument when we have these disparities in the usage of the words. Thank you. --Ragib 12:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Even though the term Indian subcontinent is technically correct, it is used primarily for discussing geography. South Asia has more usage when discussing culture and is less contentious because it does not mention a particular nationality. Thanks! Anupam^Talk 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Zora, Your deleted both the reference without giving any reasons.You are trying to "own" up the article.Pls read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not esp the section Wikipedia is not a battleground .-Bharatveer 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

One reference was to a commercial website written in sub-standard English, and the other was to a dictionary. Insisting on "Hindu dharma" is silly, given that the phrase is not colloquial English. If it gets taken into regular English, then we can use it. In terms of ghits, Hinduism wins out over Hindu dharma 4 to 1 -- and most of the ghits for "Hindu dharma" seem to be Hindu religious websites. As for "not a battleground" -- projection? Zora 04:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now you are being silly here. Pls try to understand the meaning of the word "colloquial".Colloquial phrases are never used in formal writing , they are just reserved for conversational purposes only.I have given the reference from Merriam_webster's Dictionary for the word "Dharma" , which proves it's regular usage. Now when you have a solid reference like that , you dont go for G-Hits or whatever.So pls re-insert those references again.-Bharatveer 04:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, the phrase "Hindu dharma" is neither used in spoken (colloquial) nor extremely formal English. (The two varieties of English are a continuum rather than disjunct; many expressions that are colloquial are also perfectly acceptable in formal writing.) It sounds strange. It sounds HINGLISH. That's my professional (copyeditor, proofreader) opinion. I can ask a copyeditors' mailing list and I'm sure that they would say the same thing. Why fight about this? What the heck is the point of saying "Hindu dharma" rather than "Hinduism"? Zora 10:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In acceptable English, whether proper British, American, or Indian, the term Hindu dharma is not used. South Asia is much more common, lke "BBC News South Asia" etc. "Indian subcontinent" would be less than accurate, and the strongest reason would be that this does not include Sri Lanka and by definition Nepal or Bhutan. South Asia however includes all those countries. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 21:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just saw that the Wikipedia article says Indian subcontinent does include Sri Lanka, but other sources only include India-Bangladesh-Pakistan. A subcontinent usually wouldn't include islands like Sri Lanka or the Maldives, and South Asia would be much more accurate since all definitions I searched included these countries. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted BharatVeer's favorite revert ... i.e. replacement of South Asia with "Indina subcontinent". I have demonstrated the more common use of the word "South Asia" over "Indian subcontinent" while talking about the culture and the region. Unless BharatVeer can show some numbers, I'll request him to stop reverting according to his personal tastes.

As for the word "Hindu dharma", the commonly used term in *English language* IS Hinduism. Once you get enough consensus to change the name of the article Hinduism to Hindu Dharma, please revert here. Until then, trying to make an English language encyclopedia replaced by regional languages is plainly illogical. Thank you. --Ragib 06:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, this is turning into really irritating game of reverts. As I have shown before, "South Asia" is the more commonly used term for the region, "Indian subcontinent" is NOT. Unless you show proof of your position, this is very unreasonable for you to revert it again and again. Please stop this. Thank you. --Ragib 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, please stop misleading with summaries like "changed to version with reference ". Your reference doesn't show in any way that the region is more commonly called "Indian subcontinent" anymore, and it wasn't removed either. 40:1 ratio of usage between South Asia and Indian subcontinent is a good reason why South Asia is definitely the word to use here for the region. Thank you. --Ragib 06:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just want to remind BharatVeer that he needs to stop gaming the system. I'm not going to revert the article anymore today because I've done it thrice already. IF BharatVeer has ANY evidence to show that the region is more commonly called "Indian subcontinent", he needs to present it here, rather than edit warring against overwhelming consensus and evidence of usage. Thanks. --Ragib 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User Ragib, Pls stop telling untruth.References were provided to show that the region is called "indian subcontinent" and not for proving the common usage of the word.

Again , the word "dharma" is in regular use in English language.Even that reference was deleted without giving any valid reason.-Bharatveer 07:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 07:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you really talking about this "Reference"? It only has "One" casual mention of the word "Indian subcontinent" (There are no rigid rules concerning dress, however there are some traditional practices which may vary from region to region in the Indian Subcontinent.).

As for your other preferred word, I see "7,440,000" hits for the English word "hinduism" vs. 193,000 hits for the sanskrit word "Hindu dharma" . Even the m-w reference you provided is for the word "Dharma", which has been used sporadically but not commonly to relate to the concept, but NOT for the term "Hindu Dharma" which is an uncommon and a non-English word.

I've shown that the usage of the word "South Asia" is more common (40:1 or so) than "Indian subcontinent" when referring to the region, and you haven't been able to refute it. I've also shown that almost all universities (save one or two) have "South Asian Studies" departments rather than "Indian subcontinent studies" departments. Almost all countries have state departments on "South Asia" and NOT on "Indian subcontinent". That you like IS is your own preference, and there is no reason for the rest of us to follow that over common usage. And precisely the same goes for your continuous arguments for a non-English term over a very commonly used term. Thanks. --Ragib 08:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the reference was for the word "dharma" .It was given because User:Zora had deleted that word saying there was no such english word.Do you think, you need a reference for the word "hindu" also?Your argument that all countries have state departments on "south asia" just shows the political significance of that term, which is not the issue in question here.

"Rest of us" doesnt mean you or User:Zora alone , just let other users decide on this matter.You should not have removed the references just like that.-Bharatveer 09:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, do you have any numbers or do you NOT? Don't avoid that. The countries and universities use the term "South Asia" just shows the region is known by this name. Interestingly, you refer to the usage by state departments as political .... then why would universities name their departments, related to the culture of the region, as "South Asian studies"?

As for the Non-English term "Hindu Dharma", you have no references, and the reference you are fervently reverting to, isn't even for the term. I can read the above discussion to see that most of it was about the phrase "Hindu Dharma", and not about the word "Dharma". You say, you need a reference for the word "hindu" also?. No I don't, but I do like to see some numbers showing that the phrase "Hindu Dharma" is more common than the other term Hinduism in English language.

You have been asked about this before, but without any shred of reference to back up these, you have been reverting to your preferred words. But really, You should not have removed the references just like that - which "removal" of "references" are you talking about? Have you given references to support your two broad claims, at all? Please come up with such references first. Thank you. --Ragib 11:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

From this edit diff , You argued that Hindu dharma is not an English term.I gave this reference Dharma- MW DIctionary ,the reference from a standard English dictionary that dharma is an english word .Now how do you justify the removal of this reference.Now dont try to misdirect the discussion to g hits again.-Bharatveer 12:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you please take a look above before adding your comments? The reference you provide above is for the word Dharma which is a religious and philosophical context (please refer to your own reference to learn that). The point is, you were adding it as a support for "Hindu Dharma" being an English term, which isn't by any means. If you can, please provide a reference from the MW dictionary showing that "Hindu Dharma" is considered a more preferred replacement for Hinduism. Once again, you just add more and more comments without actually answering my question. And PLEASE, stop claiming the reference for "Dharma" as one for "Hindu Dharma". At least, READ your own reference before posting here again ... that'll save your and our time and efforts. Thanks. --Ragib 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I should perhaps add that the term "dharma" is widely used by English-speaking practitioners of Buddhism. However, it's usually used in the sense of "the underlying rules of the universe" which the Buddha is believed to have learned and taught. "Dharma" is used as shorthand for "Buddhist teachings." (The WP article on Dharma is pretty much OK at explaining this.) However, I am under no illusion that any of this would make sense to non-Buddhists. Hence I don't use the term outside my sangha. Insisting that others use terms that make sense only to believers is not the best way to communicate, or to make friends for your beliefs. Zora 03:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Ragib,Pls take some of your time to learn reading things properly.What makes it so difficult for you to understand "Hindu Dharma" is not a single word , but two words , and both of which are in regular usage in the English language.SO please stop that senseless argument.The reference was cited for "dharma" because YOU insisted that there was no such english word like that.Please have the decency to admit you were wrong .

User:Zora,When we are discussing issues like this , it would be best to keep personal details to oneself.The Claims that you are a copywriter/proof reader by profession ; or that you are a Zen budhist by belief is not going to help you much here.It is altogether another matter regarding the veracity of those claims.-Bharatveer 04:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, you cleverly try to evade the question. I read very well, and since you asked, here is an excerpt from your "reference" ... The meaning of Dharma, as given in the M-W dict, is not what you imply here, rather its meaning is given as an individual's duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law 2 Hinduism & Buddhism a : the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence : divine law b : conformity to one's duty and nature . However, you are arguing that it is a very commonly used synonym for the English language word : "Religion", and therefore, "Hindu + Dharma" = "Hindu + Religion" = Hinduism. And here is your fallacy. Anyway, I've wasted enough bytes here showing the same thing at least three times, so there is no meaning in repeating that again. Even if, hypothetically, your reference showed the word "Hindu Dharma" in the M-W dictionary, there is absolutely no reason we should replace it with something which is 30 times less commonly used. Thank you, and unless you come up with something logical enough, I won't reply to your personal opinions. Thanks. --Ragib 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are again repeating your senseless arguments.User Ragib,Pls keep your personal likes & dislikes to yourself.-Bharatveer 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, you don't have any real reply to the questions, and also haven't back up your own arguments. Rather than making ad hominem comments, it might be better to either reply to the questions with references, or agree with the consensus. Thanks. --Ragib 05:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, you are repeating your senseless arguments again and again.It would be better if you dont waste your time like this again.-Bharatveer 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fine! All I asked was that you give some real references to your viewpoint, and we are yet to see any from you. I have repeated the issue several times above ONLY because you simply skipped the questions and went over and over on the same things (even after being shown that the references don't support them). --Ragib 05:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Protected the article in the interim -- Samir धर्म 06:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User Ragib pls stop spouting lies.The reference was for the word dharma which means "a : the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence : divine law b : conformity to one's duty and nature ".

First you say that there is no such word "Dharma" in english .When the reference is given, you say that word is not in regular usage.And NOW you are saying that "Hinduism" is used more commonly than "Hindu dharma".So finally the question is about consensus. Let a consensus evolve among the users.There are no fixed rules in wikipedia that only the most acceptable word should be used here.

Users Ragib & zora pls read this wiki guideline , "Wikipedia is not a battleground.-Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." -Bharatveer 06:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I dont think it applies to Ragib, but Zora should definitely read this. "Outside South Asia" makes no sense because the geographical area is referred to as the subcontinent. We could merely say "The Subcontinent" if the word "India" is obviously POV]][[-[Hindutva]]-nationalistic.Bakaman _Bakatalk 07:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I went to this page just as a casual American, native-English speaker curious about bindi. If the purpose of the article is to educate those of us who are curious about Indian customs, it makes more sense to use the more-commonly-understood-to-non-Indian-English-speakers term Hinduism rather than Hindu dharma, which would mean nothing to me without looking it up, be it ever so correct. As I think the point here is communication and education and not didacticism, and this is an English article, I think that might be a useful consideration. As for the other "discussion," I bow to those of you with superior knowledge. Alicefaith 23:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I hope the discussion on the English use of the term "Hindu dharma" can end, because no matter how often the terms are separately used, they don't make sense together in English, especially not when compared to the accepted term "Hinduism". Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Indian subcontinent" is something that's used only in the Indian subcontinent, probably only in India. So 'South Asia' indeed is the right way to call it.

And that apart, again and again and yet again, WHY do we have the Hindi transliteration here? This kind of 'Hindi'-ising every article possible even remotely connected to India is shameful. Either remove the Hindi transliteration and replace it with a spelling with diacritics/IPA etc., or add transliterations of every other language in India the 'sub-continent'. Otherwise a Pottu for the Tamil usage, a Bottu for the Kannada usage, the respective terms in Bangla, Sinhala, and all other languages of the subcontinent/South Asia will be in order. Because certainly a 'Bottu' is every bit as important and notable and encyclopaedic as the 'Bindi'. Sarvagnya 02:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

THe title of the article is Bindi (not Bottu, Tilaka etc). Why do you have to bring the same useless anti-Hindi canard on every page? First it was Jana Gana Mana, Vande Mataram and Saare Jahan Se Achcha (which you used socks to 3RR game). The only thing shameful is how you troll on India related pages.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, I have a hard time locating South Asia on a map, (perhaps because it doesn't exist?), and Indian subcontinent accurately describes the geographical region as one bounded by the Himalayas and Hindu Kush on the North and the Indian Ocean on the south.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seconding Sarvagnya's comments regarding using Hindi (if Bindi is a Hindi language word, Hindi is the language to use here, if it is from something else, that'd be the language to use, so no point in arguing over that). But we are not talking about mountains and oceans here. When it comes to the culture, people, and nations, the term in use is "South Asia", as demonstrated by contemporary usage. You'd find "South Asian studies" for departments that study the culture and people of the region; and NOT "Indian subcontinent studies". Numbers show that the ratio is almost 30-40 to 1. That, by itself, is enough to end this discussion. Thanks. --Ragib 05:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

User:Ragib,Its not the end of the discussion .Just let other users to elucidate their veiws.Thats how a consensus is formed.Looks like some people here are in a real hurry.-Bharatveer 05:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

WE are discussing geography here. Where is it being worn? In the Indian subcontinent. Who is wearing it? - South Asian women. That's the most sensible way to go. Obviously you dont find ISC (Indian subcontinent studies). They're not studying the geography of the subcontinent, they are studying South Asian culture. My comments are most aligned with Anupam above.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd add to this old argument just for information if people are interested. 'Indian subcontinent' or even 'the subcontinent' is THE term used in Australia to refer to countries in this region. It is very commonly used to describe India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangledesh in cricket, ie, subcontinental cricket, and consequentally is the term used in general. It is not considered or meant to be a racist term. I realise that this is very different from the UK (where I have also lived) and was a source of amusing confusion when I was playing cricket there and was told when I joined the club that several good Asian players were members. I was quite surprised as the only Asian country I could think of where cricket was even played to any extent was Malaysia and it didn't occur to me that they might be subcontinental players! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.88.131 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

A certain user (who I'm not going to talk to) should see WP:VAND and WP:AGF. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello? Isn't this getting just a little bit silly? This talk page is umpteen kilobytes and the article itself is only a screen full. Obviously there are some regional differences. Describe what you know from your region as applicable to your region, and if someone from another region finds things to be the same, they can note that it's the same in their region, too. Don't fret too much about it; you've got readers all over the world just trying to get a general idea of what this Bindi thing is all about. -- ke4roh 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I replaced the imported phrase "Hindu dharma" with "Hinduism" once again. Same reasoning -- this is an English language encyclopedia and we use the terms that are most familiar to readers.

I'm also wondering about one thing in the article -- the article states that married Hindu women wear the bindi. I left that there for now, but I think that statement confuses the bindi on the forehead with the application of red to the parting of the hair that symbolizes marriage.

I'm wondering if we should also add something re the smudge of red that is put on your forehead when you visit a Hindu temple and receive prasad. It's a smudge, not a neat bindi, but it's same place, same color in many cases ... related? Name for this? Comments welcome -- I'm not Hindu, so I'm probably ignorant of the fine points. Zora 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's a Teeka, or a tilak,Haphar 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have suitably modified the wikilink.Same reasoning -- Hindu & Dharma are both English words and therefore can be used in an English Wikipedia.-Bharatveer 04:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

However, yet again, you have not shown that the term "Hindu Dharma", referring to Hinduism, is more common than the English language word "Hinduism". Please don't repeat the things about "Hindu" and "Dharma" (2 separate words) being present in the dictionary, your own references show Dharma to refer to a separate concept than to be an exclusive synonym for "Religion". In other words, once you show "Hindu Dharma" a common, widely used replacement for the English word "Hinduism", revert to that. Until you do so, please refrain from doing the same thing again and again. I have shown the relevant numbers regarding common usage. Thanks. --Ragib 05:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

User Ragib, Pls peruse Common Sense.-Bharatveer 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Resorting to personal attacks again? Replying with an argument would have been easier. Again, you have failed to show any answer to my question: is "Hindu Dharma" a synonym for "Hinduism", and is it more common than the English language word "Hinduism". Please don't revert until you answer this. Finding the word "Dharma" in a dictionary isn't really an answer, as your own reference shows it to allude to a concept rather than be the sole synonym for religion. Thank you. --Ragib 06:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bharatveer, this is simply too much. Reverting on whim without bothering to show an argument, and gaming the WP:3RR is too much. Please do show an argument for your position before making such unexplained "rv to previous versions"-type reverts. Also, answer my questions rather than your comments on me. Thanks. --Ragib 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

user:ragib , Pls stop making false accusations. Where did I attack you personally? Hindu Dharma is the more correct term and there is no rule in wikipedia which says that a less common usage word should not be used.You have made a rather "strange" accusation of "gaming" the system on me, when you are the one who is doing that with the support of your cronies.-Bharatveer 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your replies to normal, polite questions are examples. And as for reverts, the history of this article is an example. Thanks. --Ragib 06:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bharatveer has just broken 3RR. I have reported him to AN/3RR . I've also posted a note in WP:ANB for comments from other editors. Thanks. --Ragib 07:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No Ragib.You are wrong and You know that.-Bharatveer 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

My opinion -- there's no question it should be: "Some Westerners who have converted to Hinduism..." in terms of common usage. I think it's most clear for all users. User:Ryulong who reverted seems to agree also in his edit summary. Perhaps an RfC would be best to clarify. Also, Bharatveer, tone down the superfluous commentary that's venturing into the range of attacks -- Samir धर्म 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

An RFC for two words? Thats pretty frivolous.Bakaman 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's been done for less before -- Samir धर्म 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The overwhelming consensus, as shown in the WP:ANB thread is that "Hindu Dharma" is not an English phrase for the religion, and not in common usage. Therefore, the matter should end here. Thanks. --Ragib 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The term "Paki Spot" is horribly racist and shouldn't be used in this article. I'm from Manchester and if anyone did say this it would be because they didn't know what it was actually called (they would get some funny looks from those who are against racism).

Everyone would understand what they meant but it's an awful term.--bunnygirlxxx 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia neither condones nor condemns anything. It is impartial and objective. Here, the article is merely reporting a term observed in common usage. tgies 08:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any references supporting this needs to be provided. --Ragib 09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be nice and maybe helpful if it was added to the article that men in both the Hindu and some Buddhist traditions wear the bindi as well as women. I myself being an ordained Buddhist Priest and former Zen monk have and do wear one for special religious events/practices.

Om System.

You were talking about Tilaka, right? --Ragib 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is correct that foreign guests on a train in north India would not have a bindi applied by a train attendant (as they are in the 2007 Wes Anderson film The Darjeeling Limited), correct? Badagnani 04:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's not a bindi. 172.163.150.108 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)AyanReply

It's a tilak, and no, a normal train rider would not have one applied. An honored guest in some ceremonial capacity might, however. FellGleaming (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recently removed three links from the external links section that were to online stores selling bindis. But my edit was reverted without comment. These sorts of links are entirely unencyclopedic and not in keeping with our guidelines or policy. At least one of the links has been spammed across multiple Wikipedia articles. Are there reasons for keeping them I'm not aware of? Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 15:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since there has been no response, I assume it was a mistake and I'll go head and bring the section back into compliance with the guidelines. -- SiobhanHansa 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Oct11988duh has been adding his/her own uploaded photos and replacing existing photos from the article. Here are some problems with the photos:

• Image:Indian Women with Bindi on forehead.jpg - does this image illustrate a Bindi at all? This seems to have the bangles in the foreground as the main theme of the photo. The image does show part of the face of a woman (who does not appear to be Indian), but again, the "Bindi" is hardly visible in the image. What purpose does it serve? Oct1988duh replaced a much better illustrative example of a native Indian woman Image:Indian Woman with bindi.jpg.

• Any significance of the photo of the child with Bindi?

• Why was the photo with the Bindi styles removed?

I have reverted his/her changes 3 times and will not edit it today, but I will request the user to justify the above actions. --Ragib (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, may of the images in the flickr account seems to be scans of magazines, I hardly believe these are actually taken by the uploader. --Ragib (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Many of these apparently refer to a tilak, not a bindi. Does anyone have any comments on this before I delete the relevant entries? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The term 'binki' is used 16 times in the start of the article, but from then on the term 'bindi' is used. I think this is just an error - am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullestock (talk • contribs) 08:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article continues to rail against alleged "misconceptions" by saying things like "in modern times" etc. But it does not explain anything about historical significance. Why take pains to say "in modern times it is not X/Y/Z" unless it was the case at one time? But the article does not spend any time on this. The article's choice of words and repeatedly insistent tone of smacks of historical revisionism. - 174.46.204.210 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

This could be cleared up by moving the "modern times" section to follow the "religious significance" section. I agree that the article seems argumentative or assumes prior knowledge in arguing against supposed misconceptions. I'm going to move the sections now. Probably there will need to be some fine tuning of transitions and eliminating redundancies. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 14:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Probably this article is what most readers will be looking for, and it be the main article. It should be renamed 'Bindi' and the disambig should be renamed. LaTeeDa (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

would like a different page w/ the title bottu.

it's horribly offensive and dismissive to give a small mention of that word and somehow use bindi as a de facto word.Not everyone in India speaks Urdu/Hindi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm from Malaysia, I never knew 'nande' is pejorative until now. What exactly does 'nande' mean? I only know Nandi is the white bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.217 (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's already a picture of a woman in bindi,i don't think there is a need to keep a pic of another old woman, traditionally in India it is worn among the upper caste Hindu Brahmin woman who are of a different type then the woman in that pic. Also note that the Vedas, Upanishads, Gita were all the works of upper caste Hindus i.e Brahmins, thus it is befetting to keep a photo of a Brahmin woman as a mark of respect for their ancestor works(wearing of Bindi started among Brahmin woman at first),the photo of the woman in red sari at the top is that of an Indian Actress who is a Brahmin Hindu ,thus it is kept there ,i hope u get the point. Rim sim (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nowhere in this article does it mention bindis being exclusive to any particular caste. You'll have to find a more compelling argument to back that up, especially considering the sources explicitly say bindis aren't even exclusive to one religion. Something better than using bogus edit summaries, but is it worth violating your topic ban a second time? Blackguard 08:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bindi (decoration)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

For this article to be properly encyclopedic, more investigation is needed to trace the origin and history of the red forehead dot's usage in Chinese culture (it is still painted on the foreheads of Chinese children for certain festivals). Although this is not mentioned in the current version of the article, this is almost certainly a borrowing from Indian culture via the spread of Buddhism. Chinese statues of Buddha often have a dot on the forehead. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Kautilya3: and @Fowler&fowler:. Someone seems to have changed page title from Bindi to Pottu, I think the word Pottu is not used outside Tamil Nadu and i can't find Sanskrit "Pottu", while Bindi is common;y used word across most parts of India and Nepal. Please look into this.117.198.244.227 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This person seems to have moved the page from Bindi to Pottu, claims it's most commonly used word in India but i can't find any source for this. 16:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.244.227 (talk) Reply

  The redirect Bindi (decoration has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Bindi (decoration until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply