ผู้ใช้:Waniosa Amedestir/ทดลองเขียน

แม่แบบต่าง ๆ

แก้

แม่แบบ:เขตผู้ว่าการอัลมะฮ์วีต

แก้

การมองเห็นเริ่มต้นของแม่แบบนี้ ปัจจุบันมีค่าเริ่มต้นเป็น autocollapse หมายความว่า หากมีวัตถุอื่นที่มีคุณลักษณะยุบได้วางอยู่ในหน้า (navbox, sidebar หรือตารางที่ยุบได้) แม่แบบนี้จะถูกซ่อนให้เหลือแต่แถบชื่อเรื่อง หากไม่มี ก็จะสามารถเห็นได้ทั้งหมด

ในการตั้งค่าการมองเห็นเริ่มต้นของแม่แบบนี้ ให้ใช้พารามิเตอร์ |state= ดังนี้

  • {{Waniosa Amedestir|state=collapsed}} จะแสดงแม่แบบนี้ในสภาพยุบ กล่าวคือ ถูกซ่อนให้เหลือแต่แถบชื่อเรื่อง
  • {{Waniosa Amedestir|state=expanded}} จะแสดงแม่แบบนี้ในสภาพขยาย กล่าวคือ สามารถเห็นได้ทั้งหมด


แม่แบบ:เขตผู้ว่าการของประเทศเยเมน

แก้

การมองเห็นเริ่มต้นของแม่แบบนี้ ปัจจุบันมีค่าเริ่มต้นเป็น autocollapse หมายความว่า หากมีวัตถุอื่นที่มีคุณลักษณะยุบได้วางอยู่ในหน้า (navbox, sidebar หรือตารางที่ยุบได้) แม่แบบนี้จะถูกซ่อนให้เหลือแต่แถบชื่อเรื่อง หากไม่มี ก็จะสามารถเห็นได้ทั้งหมด

ในการตั้งค่าการมองเห็นเริ่มต้นของแม่แบบนี้ ให้ใช้พารามิเตอร์ |state= ดังนี้

  • {{Waniosa Amedestir|state=collapsed}} จะแสดงแม่แบบนี้ในสภาพยุบ กล่าวคือ ถูกซ่อนให้เหลือแต่แถบชื่อเรื่อง
  • {{Waniosa Amedestir|state=expanded}} จะแสดงแม่แบบนี้ในสภาพขยาย กล่าวคือ สามารถเห็นได้ทั้งหมด
References


ข้อพิพาทลิขสิทธิ์ภาพเซลฟีลิง (Monkey selfie copyright dispute)

แก้
 
หนึ่งในภาพเซลฟีลิงที่เป็นประเด็นในข้อพิพาท

ในช่วง ค.ศ. 2011 ถึง 2018 มีข้อพิพาทเกี่ยวกับสถานะลิขสิทธิ์ของภาพเซลฟีของลิงกังดำโดยใช้อุปกรณ์ของเดวิด เจ. สเลเทอร์ (David J. Slater) ช่างภาพสัตว์ป่าชาวบริติช ข้อพิพาทมความเกี่ยวข้องกับวิกิมีเดียคอมมอนส์ และบล็อก เทคเดิร์ต ที่แสดงภาพหลังจากเผยแพร่ในหนังสือพิมพ์เมื่อเดือนกรกฎาคม ค.ศ. 2011 เนื่องจากคำคัดค้านของสเลเทอร์ว่าเขาถือลิขสิทธิ์ และ People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) ที่โต้แย้งว่าควรมอบลิขสิทธิ์ให้กับลิงมาคาก

สเลเทอร์โต้แย้งว่าเขาอ้างสิทธิ์ในลิขสิทธิ์อย่างถูกต้อง เนื่องจากเขาออกแบบสถานการณ์ที่ว่า ด้วยการเดินทางไปอินโดนีเซีย ผูกมิตรกับลิงมาคากกลุ่มหนึ่ง และตั้งค่าอุปกรณ์กล้องในลักษณะที่ทำให้เซลฟีได้ The Wikimedia Foundation's 2014 refusal to remove the pictures from its Wikimedia Commons image library was based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (ไม่ใช่legal person) cannot hold copyright, ดังนั้น ภาพนี้จึงเป็นสาธารณสมบัติ

สเลเทอร์กล่าวในเดือนสิงหาคม ค.ศ. 2014 ว่านับตั้งแต่ภาพนั้นปรากฏในวิกิพีเดีย เขาสูญเสียรายได้อย่างน้อย £10,000 (เทียบเท่าประมาณ 12,000 ปอนด์ ใน ค.ศ. 2021) และธุรกิจของเขาในฐานะช่างภาพสัตว์ป่าถูกทำให้เสียหาย[1] ในเดือนธันวาคม ค.ศ. 2014 สำนักงานลิขสิทธิ์แห่งสหรัฐระบุว่า ผลงานที่ไม่ได้สร้างโดยมนุษย์ อย่างภาพถ่ายที่ลิงเป็นผู้ถ่าย ไม่มีลิขสิทธิ์[2] A number of legal experts in the US and UK have argued that Slater's role in the photographic process may have been sufficient to establish a valid copyright claim, though this decision would have to be made by a court.[3][4][5]

In a separate dispute, PETA tried to use the monkey selfies to establish a legal precedent that animals should be declared copyright holders. Slater had published a book containing the photographs through the self-publishing company Blurb, Inc. In September 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit against Slater and Blurb, requesting that the copyright be assigned to the macaque and that PETA be appointed to administer proceeds from the photos for the endangered species' benefit.[6] In dismissing PETA's case, a federal district court ruled that a monkey cannot own copyright under US law.[7] PETA appealed. In September 2017, PETA and Slater agreed to a settlement in which Slater would donate a portion of future revenues on the photographs to wildlife organizations. However, the court of appeals declined to dismiss the appeal and declined to vacate the lower court judgment.[8] In April 2018, the appeals court ruled that animals cannot legally hold copyrights and expressed concern that PETA's motivations had been to promote their own interests rather than to protect the legal rights of Naruto.[9]

ภูมิหลัง

แก้
 
ภาพพิพาทอีกอันที่เป็น "เซลฟี" เต็มตัว

Since 2008, British nature photographer David Slater had traveled to Indonesia to take photographs of the critically endangered Celebes crested macaques. In 2011 he licensed several images to the Caters News Agency who released them, along with a written promotional press release with quotes from Slater, for publication in the British media.[10][11] On 4 July 2011 several publications, including The Telegraph and The Guardian, picked up the story and published the pictures along with articles that quoted Slater as describing the photographs as self-portraits taken by the monkeys, such as "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" (The Telegraph),[12] and "a camera on a tripod" triggered by the monkeys (The Guardian).[13] The articles also contained Slater quotes such as "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back." The following day, Amateur Photographer reported that Slater gave them further explanation as to how the photographs were created, downplaying the way newspaper articles had described them; Slater said reports that a monkey ran off with his camera and "began taking self-portraits" were incorrect and that the portrait was shot when his camera had been mounted on a tripod, with the primates playing around with a remote cable release as he fended off other monkeys.[14]

Slater gave further description on his website and in other media accounts, saying he and a guide followed the monkeys for three days, gaining their trust on the second day.[15] According to Slater, in his attempts to get photographs of the monkeys, he found that they were fascinated with the camera and the camera gear and kept playing with it, but they also kept trying to run off with the camera. Slater further stated in a 7 August 2014 Amateur Photographer follow-up article that "I wanted a close-up image but I couldn't do it. They were too nervous, so I had to get them [the monkeys] to come to the camera without me being there and get them to play with the release, which they did". He added: "They were looking at the reflection in the lens, which they found amusing".[16] In an attempt to get a portrait of the monkeys' faces, Slater said he set the camera on a tripod with a large wide-angle lens attached, and set the camera's settings to optimize the chances of getting a facial close up, using predictive autofocus, motor drive, and a flashgun. Slater further stated that he set the camera's remote shutter trigger next to the camera and, while he held onto the tripod, the monkeys spent 30 minutes looking into the lens and playing with the camera gear, triggering the remote multiple times and capturing many photographs. The session ended when the "dominant male at times became over excited and eventually gave me a whack with his hand as he bounced off my back".[15] Slater also said in a 28 July 2017 Vice magazine interview that some news outlets were misreporting how he obtained the selfie, but he went along with it because it was "a bit of fun and some good publicity for the conservation cause".[17]

ปัญหาสิขสิทธิ์

แก้

On 9 July 2011, an editor on Wikimedia Commons, a site that only accepts media available under a free content license or in the public domain, uploaded the selfie photographs from The Daily Mail.[10] The uploader asserted that the photographs were in the public domain as "the work of a non-human animal", adding that "it has no human author in whom copyright is vested".[18] Slater discovered this a few days later and requested that the Wikimedia Foundation remove the photos. Initially, an administrator at Commons removed the images, but they were later restored after a community discussion on their copyright nature. Slater continued to challenge the foundation to remove the image.[10] The foundation reviewed the situation, but made the determination that the images were in the public domain and denied Slater's request; in its transparency report for August 2014, the foundation stated "copyright cannot vest in non-human authors" and "when a work's copyright cannot vest in a human, it falls into the public domain".[1][10][19][20]

Slater's conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation was covered by the blog Techdirt on 12 July 2011. Techdirt posted the photograph with a public domain license, arguing that the photograph was in the public domain because the monkey was not a legal person capable of holding a copyright, and Slater could not hold copyright to the photo because he was not involved in its creation.[21][22][23] Afterwards, Caters News Agency issued a request for the photo to be removed, citing a lack of permission; however, in response to a reply by the blog's author, Mike Masnick, the representative stated that Masnick had "blatantly 'lifted' these photographs from somewhere – I presume the Daily Mail online", and continued to request its removal. Masnick claimed that even if it were capable of being copyrighted, the photo's use on Techdirt would be considered fair use under United States copyright law. He believed that "regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright – it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself."[21][23]

Slater counterargued in response to both the Wikimedia Foundation and Techdirt that he had made significant creative contributions to the monkey selfie photographs that would make the public domain argument moot. Slater told the BBC, "I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me ... so I thought they could take their own photograph. I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right ... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."[1] In a story published on or before 14 August 2014 on his own website, Slater said that the monkeys stealing the camera was a separate incident that occurred before the "selfies" were taken.[15] Slater went on to say, "I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play ... I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on, but I was being prodded and poked by would be groomers and a few playful juveniles who nibbled at my arms."[15] In a November 2017 interview with the radio show This American Life, Slater said that he was holding the tripod with his fingers when the images were taken.[24]

Expert opinions

แก้

Expert opinion on whether Slater owns the copyright on the photographs is mixed. On 21 August 2014 the United States Copyright Office published an opinion, later included in the third edition of the office's Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, released on 22 December 2014, to clarify that "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention" and that "Because copyright law is limited to 'original intellectual conceptions of the author', the [copyright] office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants."[25][26] The compendium specifically highlights "a photograph taken by a monkey" as an example of something that cannot be copyrighted.[27]

The intellectual property lawyers Mary M. Luria and Charles Swan said that because the creator of the photograph is an animal and not a person, there is no copyright on the photograph, regardless of who owns the equipment with which the photograph was created.[28] According to the American legal scholar Jessica Litman, "No human author has rights to a photograph taken by a monkey ... The original monkey selfie is in the public domain". She said that the US Copyright Office was clarifying existing practice, and not creating a new policy.[25] However, the American art lawyer Nicholas O'Donnell of Sullivan & Worcester LLP commented that "even if 'a photograph taken by a monkey' cannot be copyrighted by the monkey, it is not clear why that would categorically rule out any copyright for a human author in a work in which cameras are intentionally left in a place where some natural force or animal will cause them to snap a photo".[5]

On 22 August 2014, the day after the US Copyright Office published their opinion, a spokesperson for the UK Intellectual Property Office was quoted as saying that, while animals cannot own copyright under UK law, "the question as to whether the photographer owns copyright is more complex. It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work and this is a decision which must be made by the courts."[27]

The British media lawyer Christina Michalos said that on the basis of British law on computer-generated art, it is arguable that Slater may own copyrights on the photograph, because he owned and presumably had set up the camera.[19] Similarly, Serena Tierney, of London lawyers BDB, stated, "If he checked the angle of the shot, set up the equipment to produce a picture with specific light and shade effects, set the exposure or used filters or other special settings, light and that everything required is in the shot, and all the monkey contributed was to press the button, then he would seem to have a passable claim that copyright subsists in the photo in the UK and that he is the author and so first owner."[4] Furthermore, Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in IP law at Sussex University, has written that existing European case law, particularly Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, makes it clear that the selection of photographs would be enough to warrant originality if the process reflects the personality of the photographer.[3] Iain Connor, a partner in Pinsent Masons, similarly said that the photographer could claim they had "put the camera in the hands of the monkey so [they had] taken some creative steps and therefore own the copyright," and that "if it's an animal that presses the button, it should be the owner of the camera that owns the copyright to that photo."[27]

Naruto v. David Slater et al.

แก้
Video of oral argument before the Ninth Circuit from 12 July 2017

The macaque photographs appeared in a book titled "Wildlife Personalities" that Slater had published via San Francisco-based self-publishing company Blurb, Inc. On 22 September 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater and Blurb in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to request that the monkey, whom they named Naruto, be assigned copyright[29] and that PETA be appointed to administer proceeds from the photos for the benefit of Naruto and other crested macaques in the reserve on Sulawesi.[30][31] PETA did so by using the next friend principle, which allows persons to sue in the name of another person who is unable to do so. In November, Angela Dunning, the attorney for Blurb, noted that PETA may have been suing on behalf of the wrong monkey.[32]

During a hearing in January 2016, US District Judge William Orrick III said that the copyright law does not extend its protection to animals.[7][30] Orrick dismissed the case on 28 January, ruling that "if Congress and the president intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly."[33][34] On 20 March 2016, PETA filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[35] On 12 July 2017, the court held an oral argument on the matter in San Francisco.[36] On 4 August 2017, lawyers for all parties to the case informed the court that they expected to arrive at an out-of-court settlement in the near future, asking the court not to issue a ruling.[37] The court on 11 August stayed the appeal to 8 September.[38] An agreement between Slater, Blurb, and PETA was reached on 11 September 2017, in which Slater will donate 25 per cent of any future revenues from the monkey selfies to charities that protect the wildlife of monkeys like Naruto, but the court has not accepted this agreement as being a valid settlement.[39] As part of their joint motion to dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment, the parties have asked for vacatur, which would nullify the record in the lower court. The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an amicus brief on 13 September 2017, urging the court to deny vacatur. The brief argues that since Naruto is not a party to the settlement, PETA does not have standing to move for vacatur.[40]

In April 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the motions to vacate the case.[41] On 23 April, the court issued its ruling in favor of Slater, finding that animals have no legal authority to hold copyright claims.[9][42] The court also expressed concern with PETA's motivations and actions during the case that were aligned to promote their own interests rather than to protect Naruto, as they found PETA's actions—i.e. attempting to vacate the case when the group learned of the potential for landmark case law to be set—to be troubling. The judges noted that their decision had to be considered in light of Cetacean Community v. Bush, a 2004 case heard by the Ninth Circuit that found, under some circumstances, animals could have some standing to seek legal action, and encourages that the Ninth Circuit should hold an en banc hearing to review their decision in Cetacean in light of the monkey selfie case.[43][9][44] On 25 May, a Ninth Circuit judge made a call for the case to be heard en banc, potentially to overrule the Cetaceans Community precedent. The court requested the parties to provide briefs within 21 days on whether the en banc hearing should be granted[45][46] and on 31 August, they declined to review the case.[47]

ผลกระทบต่อสเลเทอร์

แก้

Slater told BBC News that he had suffered financial loss as a result of the pictures being available on Wikimedia Commons. He said the photograph had made him £2,000 in the first year after it was taken, but that interest in purchasing it disappeared after it was used on Wikipedia. He estimated that he had lost £10,000 in income, and said it was "killing his business".[1] Slater was quoted by The Daily Telegraph as saying, "What they don't realise is that it needs a court to decide [the copyright]."[48] In January 2016, Slater stated his intention to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement of his works.[49]

By July 2017, Slater was reported to be having financial problems and was unable to pay his attorney.[50][51][52] While he had originally made a few thousand pounds from the images, enough to recoup his travel costs to Indonesia, this income reduced to about "£100 every few months" when the Wikimedia Foundation refused to stop making the images available without his permission.[1][51]

Slater was unable to travel to the July 2017 court hearing in the United States for lack of funds and said he was considering alternative careers as a dog walker or tennis coach.[51] He said he was no longer motivated to take photographs, that he had become depressed,[51] and that his efforts to "highlight the plight of the monkeys" had "backfired on my private life" and ruined his life.[51] However, Slater said he was delighted by the impact of the photoshoot itself: "It has taken six years for my original intention to come true which was to highlight the plight of the monkeys and bring it to the world. No one had heard of these monkeys six years ago, they were down to the last thousands. ... The locals used to roast them, but now they love them, they call it the 'selfie monkey'. Tourists are now visiting and people see there is a longer-term benefit to the community than just shooting a monkey."[51]

In May 2018, Condé Nast Entertainment acquired the rights from Slater to make a documentary film related to the monkey selfie dispute. The project was being overseen by Dawn Ostroff and Jeremy Steckler.[53]

อ้างอิง

แก้
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 "Photographer 'lost £10,000' in Wikipedia monkey 'selfie' row". BBC News. 7 August 2014. สืบค้นเมื่อ 4 November 2017.
  2. U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306 (3d ed. 2021). [1]
  3. 3.0 3.1 Guadamuz, Andres (2016). "The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction". Internet Policy Review. 5 (1). doi:10.14763/2016.1.398.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Orlowski, Andrew (24 August 2014). "Cracking copyright law: How a simian selfie stunt could make a monkey out of Wikipedia". The Register.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Nicholas O'Donnell (28 July 2017). "Is the 'monkey selfie' case making a monkey out of the law?". Apollo Magazine. สืบค้นเมื่อ 29 July 2017.
  6. "NARUTO, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., and ANTJE ENGELHARDT, Ph.D. Plaintiff, vs. DAVID JOHN SLATER, an individual, BLURB, INC., a Delaware corporation, and WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD., a United Kingdom private limited company, Defendants" (PDF). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 21 September 2015. คลังข้อมูลเก่าเก็บจากแหล่งเดิม (PDF)เมื่อ 15 November 2017. สืบค้นเมื่อ 14 November 2017.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Kravets, David (6 January 2016). "Judge says monkey cannot own copyright to famous selfies". Ars Technica. สืบค้นเมื่อ 7 January 2016.
  8. Wittenhorst, Tilman. "Streit über Affen-Selfie geht weiter: Vergleich hinfällig, Urteil angekündigt". Heise online (ภาษาเยอรมัน).
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).
  10. 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Stewart, Louise (21 August 2014). "Wikimedia says when a monkey take a selfie, no one owns it". Newsweek. สืบค้นเมื่อ 15 November 2017.
  11. Guadamuz, Andrés (21 March 2016). "The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction". Internet Policy Review. 5. doi:10.14763/2016.1.398.
  12. "Monkey steals camera to snap himself". The Telegraph. 4 July 2011. สืบค้นเมื่อ 4 November 2017.
  13. Morris, Steven (4 July 2011). "Shutter-happy monkey turns photographer". The Guardian. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 15 October 2022. สืบค้นเมื่อ 15 October 2022.
  14. Cheesman, Chris (5 July 2011). "Ape-rture priority photographer plays down monkey reports". Amateur Photographer. สืบค้นเมื่อ 4 November 2017.
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Slater, David J. "Sulawesi macaques..." DJS Photography. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 16 August 2014. สืบค้นเมื่อ 4 November 2017.
  16. Cheesman, Chris (7 August 2014). "Photographer goes ape over monkey selfie: Who owns the copyright?". Amateur Photographer.
  17. Rafaeli, JS (29 July 2017). "I'm a Human Man Being Sued By a Monkey". Vice Media. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 15 October 2022. สืบค้นเมื่อ 15 October 2022.
  18. "Macaca nigra self-portrait". Wikimedia Commons. 9 July 2017. สืบค้นเมื่อ 4 November 2017.
  19. 19.0 19.1 "Monkey 'selfie' picture sparks Wikipedia copyright row". ITV News. ITV plc. 6 August 2014. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 13 August 2014. สืบค้นเมื่อ 14 August 2014.
  20. "Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links". BBC News. 6 August 2014. สืบค้นเมื่อ 8 August 2014.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Masnick, Mike (12 July 2011). "Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos". Techdirt. สืบค้นเมื่อ 24 June 2014.
  22. "Can monkey who took grinning self-portrait claim copyright?". Metro. 14 July 2011. สืบค้นเมื่อ 24 June 2014.
  23. 23.0 23.1 Masnick, Mike (13 July 2011). "Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain". Techdirt. สืบค้นเมื่อ 24 June 2014.
  24. Chivvis, Dana (10 November 2017). "The Monkey Stays in the Picture". This American Life. ตอน 631. Chicago Public Media. Public Radio Exchange. WBEZ. So a Monkey and a Horse Walk into a Bar Transcript. สืบค้นเมื่อ 13 November 2017.
  25. 25.0 25.1 Axelrad, Jacob (22 August 2014). "US government: Monkey selfies ineligible for copyright". Christian Science Monitor. สืบค้นเมื่อ 23 August 2014.
  26. "Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.2" (PDF). สำนักงานลิขสิทธิ์แห่งสหรัฐ. 22 December 2014. p. 22. สืบค้นเมื่อ 27 April 2015. To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being.... Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 Samuel Gibbs (22 August 2014). "Monkey business: macaque selfie can't be copyrighted, say US and UK". The Guardian. สืบค้นเมื่อ 16 July 2017.
  28. Laurent, Olivier (6 August 2014). "Monkey Selfie Lands Photographer in Legal Quagmire". Time. Time Inc. คลังข้อมูลเก่าเก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 14 August 2014. สืบค้นเมื่อ 14 August 2014.
  29. "PETA files suit on behalf of grinning 'selfie monkey'". 22 September 2015. สืบค้นเมื่อ 22 September 2015.
  30. 30.0 30.1 A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos, Associated Press, 7 January 2016.
  31. "Monkey selfie: warring parties reach settlement over court case". The Guardian. 12 September 2017. สืบค้นเมื่อ 4 November 2017.
  32. Will the real monkey who snapped those famous selfies please stand up?, by David Kravets, at Ars Technica; published 10 November 2015; retrieved 2 August 2016
  33. Iovino, Nicholas (29 January 2016). "Judge Dismisses PETA's 'Monkey Selfie' Lawsuit". Courthouse Naws Service. คลังข้อมูลเก่าเก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 31 January 2016. สืบค้นเมื่อ 30 January 2016.
  34. Naruto, et al. v. Slater, et al., no. 15-CV-04324 (N.D. Cal. 28 January 2016)(Order Granting Motions To Dismiss). Retrieved 30 January 2016.
  35. Papenfuss, Mary (21 March 2016). "Captivating monkey Naruto who snapped viral selfies filing appeal for right to photos". International Business Times. สืบค้นเมื่อ 21 March 2016.
  36. "Oral Argument Notice – James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco – 2017-07-12". www.ca9.uscourts.gov. สืบค้นเมื่อ 22 May 2017.
  37. "Monkey selfie animal rights brouhaha devolves into a settlement". 5 August 2017.
  38. Naruto v. Slater, no. 16-15469, 9th Cir., Order (11 August 2017), retrieved from PACER, 4 September 2017
  39. Fingas, Jon (11 September 2017). "Monkey selfie copyright battle ends with a settlement". Engadget. สืบค้นเมื่อ 11 September 2017.
  40. Duffy, Sophie; Hanswirth, Dori Ann (20 September 2017). "Monkey See, Monkey Do… Monkey Own? The Curious Case of Naruto v. Slater". lexology.com. สืบค้นเมื่อ 22 September 2017.
  41. Jeong, Sarah (13 April 2018). "The monkey selfie lawsuit lives". The Verge. สืบค้นเมื่อ 13 April 2018.
  42. Zhang, Michael (24 April 2018). "Photographer Wins Monkey Selfie Copyright Case, Court Slams PETA". PetaPixel. สืบค้นเมื่อ 25 July 2023.
  43. Randazzo, Sara (23 April 2018). "Copyright Protection for Monkey Selfie Rejected by U.S. Appeals Court". The Wall Street Journal. สืบค้นเมื่อ 23 April 2018.
  44. United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, April 23, 2018. Full text of ruling. Retrieved 24 April 2018
  45. Graham, Scott (29 May 2018). "Monkey Selfie Case Swings Back Into Action at Ninth Circuit". The Recorder. สืบค้นเมื่อ 29 May 2018.
  46. Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 25 May 2018), order.
  47. Gellis, Cathy (4 September 2018). "Ninth Circuit Stops Monkeying Around and Denies En Banc Review of the Monkey Selfie Case". Techdirt. สืบค้นเมื่อ 2018-09-09.
  48. Sparkes, Matthew (6 August 2014). "Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'". The Daily Telegraph. London. สืบค้นเมื่อ 2014-08-06.
  49. "The Gwent photographer who won a legal battle over a 'monkey selfie' is to sue Wikipedia". South Wales Argus. 8 January 2016. สืบค้นเมื่อ 8 January 2016.
  50. Julia Carrie Wong (13 July 2017). "Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'". The Guardian. สืบค้นเมื่อ 16 July 2017.
  51. 51.0 51.1 51.2 51.3 51.4 51.5 "Photographer in bizarre selfie court battle reveals that being sued by a monkey has left him broke". The Telegraph. 13 July 2017. สืบค้นเมื่อ 16 July 2017.
  52. "Photographer Being Sued By A Monkey Over Its "Selfie" Is Now Broke". IFLScience. 13 July 2017. สืบค้นเมื่อ 16 July 2017.
  53. Siegel, Tatiana (7 May 2018). "'Monkey Selfie' Film in the Works at Conde Nast". The Hollywood Reporter. สืบค้นเมื่อ 8 May 2018.

แหล่งข้อมูลอื่น

แก้

จูเลียน (จักรพรรดิ) (Julian (emperor))

แก้
Waniosa Amedestir/ทดลองเขียน
 
Bronze coin of Julian from Antioch.
Legend: d n Fl Cl Iulianus p f aug.
Roman emperor
Augustus3 November 361 – 26 June 363 (proclaimed in early 360)
ก่อนหน้าConstantius II
ถัดไปJovian
Caesar6 November 355 – early 360
ประสูติ17 November 331
Constantinople
สวรรคต26 June 363 (aged 31)
Frygium, Mesopotamia
ฝังพระศพTarsus, then Church of the Holy Apostles
คู่อภิเษกHelena (m. 355, died 360)
พระนามเต็ม
Flavius Claudius Julianus
ราชวงศ์Constantinian
พระราชบิดาJulius Constantius
พระราชมารดาBasilina
ศาสนา

Julian[i] (ละติน: Flavius Claudius Julianus; กรีก: Ἰουλιανός Iulianos; 17 November 331 – 26 June 363) was Roman emperor from 361 to 363, as well as a notable philosopher and author in Greek.[4] His rejection of Christianity, and his promotion of Neoplatonic Hellenism in its place, caused him to be remembered as Julian the Apostate in Christian tradition.[5][6]

Julian was a member of the Constantinian dynasty; his father Julius Constantius was a half-brother of Emperor Constantine the Great. After Constantine died in 337, his sons had many of their relatives executed to prevent rival claims to the throne. Julian's father was one of those murdered on their orders, but Julian and his half-brother Constantius Gallus were spared. The orphaned princes spent much of their lives under the control of their cousin, Emperor Constantius II.[7] However, Constantius II allowed Julian to freely pursue an education in the Greek-speaking east, to the result that Julian became unusually cultured for an emperor of his time.[8] In 354, the emperor executed Julian's brother Gallus. Julian himself was imprisoned, but he was spared at the request of Empress Eusebia. In 355, Constantius II summoned Julian to court and appointed him to rule Gaul. Despite his inexperience, Julian showed unexpected success in his new capacity, defeating and counterattacking Germanic raids across the Rhine and encouraging the ravaged provinces' return to prosperity.[7] In 360, he was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers at Lutetia (Paris), sparking a civil war with Constantius. However, Constantius died before the two could face each other in battle, and named Julian as his successor.

In 363, Julian embarked on an ambitious campaign against the Sasanian Empire. The campaign was initially successful, securing a victory outside Ctesiphon in Mesopotamia.[9] However, he did not attempt to besiege the capital. Julian instead moved into Persia's heartland, but he soon faced supply problems and was forced to retreat northwards while being ceaselessly harassed by Persian skirmishes. During the Battle of Samarra, Julian was mortally wounded under mysterious circumstances.[10][8] He was succeeded by Jovian, a senior officer in the imperial guard, who was obliged to cede territory, including Nisibis, in order to save the trapped Roman forces.[11]

Julian was a man of unusually complex character: he was "the military commander, the theosophist, the social reformer, and the man of letters".[12] He was the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire, and he believed that it was necessary to restore the Empire's ancient Roman values and traditions in order to save it from dissolution.[13] He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy, and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the expense of Christianity. His attempt to build a Third Temple in Jerusalem was probably intended to harm Christianity rather than please Jews.[8] Julian also forbade the Christians from teaching and learning classical texts.[14]

หมายเหตุ

แก้
  1. Rarely Julian II. The designation "Julian I" is then applied either to the emperor Didius Julianus (ค. 193),[1] or to the usurper Sabinus Julianus (ค. 283–285).[2] Even more rarely called Julian III, with Didius Julianus as "Julian I" and Sabinus Julianus as "Julian II".[3]

อ้างอิง

แก้

อ้างอิง

แก้
  1. David Sear, Roman Coins and Their Values, Volume 5 (London: Spink, 2014), p. 267.
  2. D. Margetić, "Antoniani of Julian of Pannonia", Num. vijesti, broj 63., 2010
  3. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, "Evil Emperors", 2019
  4. Grant, Michael (1980). Greek and Latin authors, 800 B.C.–A.D. 1000, Part 1000. H. W. Wilson Co. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-8242-0640-6. JULIAN THE APOSTATE (Flavius Claudius Julianus), Roman emperor and Greek writer, was born at Constantinople in ad 332 and died in 363.
  5. Gibbon, Edward. "Chapter 23". The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
  6. A Companion to Julian the Apostate (ภาษาอังกฤษ). Brill. 20 January 2020. ISBN 978-90-04-41631-4.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, "Julian the Apostate", p. 839
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 "Julian". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. สืบค้นเมื่อ 23 August 2018.
  9. Phang et al. 2016, p. 998.
  10. "Ancient Rome: The reign of Julian". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. สืบค้นเมื่อ 23 August 2018.
  11. Potter, David (2009). Rome in the Ancient World - From Romulus to Justinian. Thames & Hudson. p. 289. ISBN 978-0500251522.
  12. Glanville Downey, "Julian the Apostate at Antioch", Church History, Vol. 8, No. 4 (December 1939), pp. 303–315. See p. 305.
  13. Athanassiadi, p. 88.
  14. Potter, David (2009). Rome in the Ancient World - From Romulus to Justinian. Thames & Hudson. p. 288. ISBN 978-0500251522.

ข้อมูลสมัยโบราณ

แก้

ข้อมูลสมัยใหม่

แก้
  • Athanassiadi, Polymnia (1992) [1981]. [[[:แม่แบบ:Googlebooks]] Julian: An Intellectual Biography]. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07763-X. {{cite book}}: ตรวจสอบค่า |url= (help)
  • Baker-Brian, Nicholas; Tougher, Shaun. (2012). Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate. The Classical Press of Wales. Swansea. ISBN 978-1-905125-50-0. http://www.classicalpressofwales.co.uk/emperor_author.htm
  • Bowersock, G.W. (1978). [[[:แม่แบบ:Googlebooks]] Julian the Apostate]. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-1262-X. {{cite book}}: ตรวจสอบค่า |url= (help)
  • Browning, Robert (1975). [[[:แม่แบบ:Googlebooks]] The Emperor Julian]. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-77029-2. {{cite book}}: ตรวจสอบค่า |url= (help)
  • Dodgeon, Michael H. & Samuel N.C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars AD 226–363, Routledge, London, 1991. ISBN 0-203-42534-0
  • Drinkwater, John F., The Alamanni and Rome 213–496 (Caracalla to Clovis), OUP Oxford 2007. ISBN 0-19-929568-9
  • Lascaratos, John and Dionysios Voros. 2000 Fatal Wounding of the Byzantine Emperor Julian the Apostate (361–363 A.D.): Approach to the Contribution of Ancient Surgery. World Journal of Surgery 24: 615–619
  • Murdoch, Adrian. The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World, Stroud, 2005, ISBN 0-7509-4048-4
  • Phang, Sara E.; Spence, Iain; Kelly, Douglas; Londey, Peter, บ.ก. (2016). Conflict in Ancient Greece and Rome: The Definitive Political, Social, and Military Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO.
  • Potter, David S. The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–395, Routledge, New York, 2004. ISBN 0-415-10058-5
  • Ridley, R.T., "Notes on Julian's Persian Expedition (363)", Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1973, pp. 317–330
  • Roberts, Walter E. & DiMaio, Michael (2002), "Julian the Apostate (360–363 A.D.)", De Imperatoribus Romanis
  • Smith, Rowland. Julian's gods: religion and philosophy in the thought and action of Julian the Apostate, London, 1995. ISBN 0-415-03487-6
  • Veyne, Paul. L'Empire Gréco-Romain. Seuil, Paris, 2005. ISBN 2-02-057798-4
  • Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich & Stefan Rebenich, บ.ก. (2020). [[[:แม่แบบ:Googlebooks]] A Companion to Julian the Apostate]. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-41456-3. {{cite book}}: ตรวจสอบค่า |url= (help)

อ่านเพิ่ม

แก้
  • García Ruiz, María Pilar, "Julian's Self-Representation in Coins and Texts." In Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire, Ed. D.W.P. Burgersdijk and A.J. Ross. Leiden. Brill. 2018. 204-233. ISBN 978-90-04-37089-0.
  • Gardner, Alice, Julian Philosopher and Emperor and the Last Struggle of Paganism Against Christianity, G.P. Putnam's Son, London, 1895. ISBN 0-404-58262-1 / ISBN 978-0-404-58262-3. Downloadable at Julian, philosopher and emperor.
  • Hunt, David. "Julian". In The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 13 (Averil Cameron & Peter Garnsey editors). CUP, Cambridge, 1998. ISBN 0-521-30200-5
  • Kettenhofen, Erich (2009). "JULIAN". JULIAN – Encyclopaedia Iranica. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. XV, Facs. 3. pp. 242–247.
  • Lenski, Noel Emmanuel Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD University of California Press: London, 2003
  • Lieu, Samuel N.C. & Dominic Montserrat: editors, From Constantine to Julian: A Source History Routledge: New York, 1996. ISBN 0-203-42205-8
  • Neander, August, The Emperor Julian and His Generation, An Historical Picture, translated by G.V. Cox, John W. Parker, London, 1859. ISBN 0-217-34765-7 / ISBN 9780217347655. Downloadable at The Emperor Julian and his generation.
  • Rendall, Gerald Henry, The Emperor Julian: Paganism and Christianity with Genealogical, Chronological and Bibliographical Appendices, George Bell and Sons, London, 1879. ISBN 1-152-51929-8 / ISBN 9781152519299. Downloadable at The Emperor Julian.
  • Rohrbacher, David. Historians of Late Antiquity. Routledge: New York, 2002. ISBN 0-415-20459-3
  • Rosen, Klaus. Julian. Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 2006.

แหล่งข้อมูลอื่น

แก้

พระเป็นเจ้าในกลุ่มศาสนาอับราฮัม (God in Abrahamic religions)

แก้

The concept of God in Abrahamic religions is centred on the dedicated worship of a singular supreme deity. The three major monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, alongside the Baháʼí Faith,[1] Samaritanism, Druze, and Rastafari,[1] are all regarded as Abrahamic religions due to their shared worship of the God (referred to as Yahweh in Hebrew and as Allah in Arabic) that these traditions say revealed himself to Abraham.[1] Abrahamic religions share the same distinguishing features:[2]

The Abrahamic God in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common feature of all Abrahamic religions.[4] God is conceived of as one, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of the universe.[4] God is always referred to with masculine grammatical articles only,[4] and further held to have the properties of holiness, justice, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. Proponents of Abrahamic faiths believe that God is also transcendent, meaning that he is outside of both space and time and therefore not subject to anything within his creation, but at the same time a personal God, involved, listening to prayer, and reacting to the actions of his creatures.

Opinions differ among scholars of religion on whether Mormonism belongs within the traditions of Christianity or whether it amounts to a distinct Abrahamic religion.[5][6] The heterogenous Rastafari movement with roots in Jamaica is classified by some scholars as an international socio-religious movement, and by others as a separate Abrahamic religion or new religious movement.[7]

References

แก้
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Abulafia, Anna Sapir (23 September 2019). "The Abrahamic religions". www.bl.uk. London: British Library. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 12 July 2020. สืบค้นเมื่อ 25 February 2021.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Bremer, Thomas S. (2015). "Abrahamic religions". Formed From This Soil: An Introduction to the Diverse History of Religion in America. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-4051-8927-9. LCCN 2014030507. S2CID 127980793.
  3. Hughes, Aaron W. (2012). "What Are "Abrahamic Religions"?". Abrahamic Religions: On the Uses and Abuses of History. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 15–33. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199934645.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-993464-5. S2CID 157815976.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Christiano, Kevin J.; Kivisto, Peter; Swatos, Jr., William H., บ.ก. (2015) [2002]. "Excursus on the History of Religions". Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. pp. 254–255. doi:10.2307/3512222. ISBN 978-1-4422-1691-4. JSTOR 3512222. LCCN 2001035412. S2CID 154932078.
  5. Shipps, Jan (2001). "Is Mormonism Christian? Reflections on a Complicated Question". ใน Eliason, Eric A. (บ.ก.). Mormons and Mormonism: An Introduction to an American World Religion. Choice Reviews Online. Vol. 39. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. pp. 76–98. doi:10.5860/choice.39-0892. ISBN 978-0-252-02609-6. S2CID 142892455.
  6. Mason, Patrick Q. (3 September 2015). "Mormonism". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.75. ISBN 978-0-19-934037-8. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 30 November 2018. สืบค้นเมื่อ 15 May 2021.
  7. Chryssides, George D. (2001) [1999]. "Independent New Religions: Rastafarianism". Exploring New Religions. Issues in Contemporary Religion. London and New York: Continuum International. pp. 269–277. doi:10.2307/3712544. ISBN 978-0-8264-5959-6. JSTOR 3712544. OCLC 436090427. S2CID 143265918.

Bibliography

แก้
แก้

เดลีย์เมล

แก้
Daily Mail
ไฟล์:Daily Mail 10 July 2021.png
Daily Mail front page on 11 July 2021
ประเภทDaily newspaper
รูปแบบTabloid
เจ้าของDaily Mail and General Trust
ผู้ก่อตั้งAlfred Harmsworth and Harold Harmsworth
ผู้เผยแพร่DMG Media
บรรณาธิการGeordie Greig
ก่อตั้งเมื่อ4 พฤษภาคม 1896; 128 ปีก่อน (1896-05-04)
นโยบายทางการเมืองRight-wing[1][2][3]
ภาษาEnglish
สำนักงานใหญ่Northcliffe House

2 Derry Street

London W8 5TT
ยอดจำหน่าย1,134,184 (as of February 2020)[4]
เลขมาตรฐานสากล (ISSN)0307-7578
OCLC number16310567
เว็บไซต์www.dailymail.co.uk

The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market newspaper and online news source[5][6] published in London in a tabloid format. Founded in 1896, it is the United Kingdom's highest-circulated daily newspaper.[7] Its sister paper The Mail on Sunday was launched in 1982, while Scottish and Irish editions of the daily paper were launched in 1947 and 2006 respectively. Content from the paper appears on the MailOnline website, although the website is managed separately and has its own editor.[8]

The paper is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust.[9] Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, a great-grandson of one of the original co-founders, is the current chairman and controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail and General Trust, while day-to-day editorial decisions for the newspaper are usually made by a team led by the editor, Geordie Greig, who succeeded Paul Dacre in September 2018.[10]

A survey in 2014 found the average age of its readers was 58, and it had the lowest demographic for 15- to 44-year-olds among the major British dailies.[11] Uniquely for a British daily newspaper, it has a majority female readership, with women making up 52–55% of its readers.[12] It had an average daily circulation of 1,134,184 copies in February 2020.[13] Between April 2019 and March 2020 it had an average daily readership of approximately 2.180 million, of whom approximately 1.407 million were in the ABC1 demographic and .773 million in the C2DE demographic.[14] Its website has more than 218 million unique visitors per month.[15]

The Daily Mail has won a number of awards, including receiving the National Newspaper of the Year award from The Press Awards eight times since 1995, winning again in 2019.[16] The Society of Editors selected it as the 'Daily Newspaper of the Year' for 2020.[17] It has also been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,[18][19][20][21] and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement.[22][23][24][25] In February 2017, the Daily Mail became the first source to be deprecated as an "unreliable source" for use as a reference on the English Wikipedia.[26]

Criticism

แก้

Reliability

แก้

The Daily Mail's medical and science journalism has been criticised by some doctors and scientists, accusing it of using minor studies to generate scare stories or being misleading.[21][20][27] In 2011, the Daily Mail published an article titled "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory".[28] Dr. Matt Jones, the lead author of the study that is cited in the article was quoted by Cannabis Law Reform as saying: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".[29]

Carbon Brief complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article published in the Daily Mail titled "Hidden green tax in fuel bills: How a £200 stealth charge is slipped on to your gas and electricity bills" because the £200 figure was unexplained, unreferenced and, according to Ofgem, incorrect. The Daily Mail quietly removed the article from their website.[30][31][32]

In 2013, the Met Office criticised an article about climate change in the Daily Mail by James Delingpole for containing "a series of factual inaccuracies".[33] The Daily Mail in response published a letter from the Met Office chairman on its letters page, as well as offering to append the letter to Delingpole's article.[34]

In February 2017, the Daily Mail became the first source to be deprecated as an "unreliable source" for use as a reference on the English Wikipedia.[26] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".[18][35] Support for the ban centred on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[18] Wikipedia's deprecation of the Daily Mail generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.[36] Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales backed the community's choice, stating: "I think what [the Daily Mail has] done brilliantly in this ad funded world (is) they've mastered the art of click bait, they've mastered the art of hyped up headlines, they've also mastered the art of, I'm sad to say, of running stories that simply aren't true. And that's why Wikipedia decided not to accept them as a source anymore. It's very problematic, they get very upset when we say this, but it's just fact."[37] A February 2017 editorial in The Times commenting on the decision stated that "Newspapers make errors and have the responsibility to correct them. Wikipedia editors' fastidiousness, however, appears to reflect less a concern for accuracy than dislike of the Daily Mail's opinions."[38] In 2018, the Wikipedia community upheld the Daily Mail's deprecation as a source.[36]

In August 2018, the Mail Online deleted a lengthy news article titled "Powder Keg Paris" by journalist Andrew Malone which focused on "illegal migrants" living in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis, after a string of apparent inaccuracies were highlighted on social media by French activist Marwan Muhammad, including mistaking Saint-Denis, the city, for Seine-Saint-Denis, the department northeast of Paris. Local councillor Majid Messaoudene said that the article had set out to "stigmatise" and "harm" the area and its people. The journalist, Andrew Malone, subsequently deleted his Twitter account.[39][40] In 2019, the IPSO ruled against the Daily Mail and confirmed in its ruling that the article was inaccurate.[41][42]

In early 2019, the mobile version of the Microsoft Edge Internet browser started warning visitors to the MailOnline site, via its NewsGuard plugin, that "this website generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability" and "has been forced to pay damages in numerous high-profile cases".[43] In late January 2019, the status of the MailOnline was changed by the Newsguard Plugin from Red to Green, updating its verdict to "this website generally maintains basic standards of accuracy and accountability". An Editors Note from Newsguard stated that "This label now has the benefit of the dailymail.co.uk's input and our view is that in some important respects their objections are right and we were wrong".[44]

References

แก้
  1. Gaber, Ivor (2014). "The 'Othering' of 'Red Ed', or How the Daily Mail 'Framed' the British Labour Leader". The Political Quarterly. 85 (4): 471–479. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12114. ISSN 1467-923X.
  2. Stoegner, Karin; Wodak, Ruth (14 March 2016). "'The man who hated Britain' – the discursive construction of 'national unity' in the Daily Mail". Critical Discourse Studies. 13 (2): 193–209. doi:10.1080/17405904.2015.1103764. ISSN 1740-5904. S2CID 147469921.
  3. Meyer, Anneke (1 March 2010). "Too Drunk To Say No". Feminist Media Studies. 10 (1): 19–34. doi:10.1080/14680770903457071. ISSN 1468-0777. S2CID 142036919.
  4. "Daily Mail - Data - ABC | Audit Bureau of Circulations". www.abc.org.uk.
  5. John Pilger Hidden Agendas เก็บถาวร 30 เมษายน 2016 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน, London: Vintage, 1998, p. 440
  6. Peter Wilby "Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail: The man who hates liberal Britain" เก็บถาวร 2 เมษายน 2016 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน, New Statesman, 19 December 2013 (online version: 2 January 2014)
  7. Sweney, Mark (19 June 2020). "Daily Mail eclipses the Sun to become UK's top-selling paper". The Guardian (ภาษาอังกฤษ). สืบค้นเมื่อ 20 June 2020.
  8. Lowe, Josh (22 June 2017). "Print vs. Online: Even Britain's Daily Mail Has Issues with Its Website". Newsweek. สืบค้นเมื่อ 13 August 2018.
  9. "Daily Mail". Mediauk. คลังข้อมูลเก่าเก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 8 March 2012. สืบค้นเมื่อ 12 March 2012.
  10. Waterson, Jim (6 September 2018). "'A friend to Middle Britain': Geordie Greig begins reign as Daily Mail editor". The Guardian. สืบค้นเมื่อ 2 December 2018.
  11. Taylor, Henry (14 August 2014). "How old are you again? UK newspaper age demographics in 4 charts". The Media Briefing. คลังข้อมูลเก่าเก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 27 December 2016. สืบค้นเมื่อ 5 March 2017.
  12. Hannah Fearn (28 March 2017). "The Daily Mail has a mainly female readership – so why do women enjoy those 'who won Legs-it' headlines?". The Independent. สืบค้นเมื่อ 12 November 2017.
  13. Mayhew, Freddy (19 March 2020). "National newspaper ABCs: Daily Mail closes circulation gap on Sun to 5,500 copies". Press Gazette (ภาษาอังกฤษแบบอเมริกัน). สืบค้นเมื่อ 2 August 2020.
  14. PAMCo. "Data Archive – Newsbrand Reach Tables". pamco.co.uk. สืบค้นเมื่อ 18 August 2020.
  15. Alpert, Lukas I. (5 December 2019). "Daily Mail's Online Reinvention Relieves Pressure Amid Newspaper-Industry Woes". The Wall Street Journal (ภาษาอังกฤษแบบอเมริกัน). ISSN 0099-9660. สืบค้นเมื่อ 2 August 2020.
  16. Brown, Mariella (3 April 2020). "Winners of the National Press Awards for 2019 revealed – Society of Editors" (ภาษาอังกฤษแบบบริติช). สืบค้นเมื่อ 20 June 2020.
  17. "Journalists recognised at Society Of Editors' Press Awards". Yahoo News. July 15, 2021.
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Jackson, Jasper (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. สืบค้นเมื่อ 11 February 2017.
  19. Collins, Lauren (April 2012). "Mail Supremacy". The New Yorker. สืบค้นเมื่อ 12 January 2016.
  20. 20.0 20.1 Goldacre, Ben (16 October 2010). "The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19". The Guardian. สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2015.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Goldacre, Ben (2008). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate. ISBN 9780007240197.
  22. Fletcher, Martin (29 April 2016). "What it's like to fall victim to the Mail Online's aggregation machine". New Statesman. สืบค้นเมื่อ 2 July 2017.
  23. Meade, Amanda (23 June 2017). "Daily Mail refuses to pay journalist for republishing parts of her work". The Guardian. สืบค้นเมื่อ 17 October 2020.
  24. "Fury at the Mail". ABC Online. 5 November 2018. สืบค้นเมื่อ 17 October 2020.
  25. Silvester, Benjamin (12 August 2020). "Exclusive! Scoop! First with the news! Journalism has a plagiarism problem". The Citizen. Centre for Advancing Journalism. สืบค้นเมื่อ 17 October 2020.
  26. 26.0 26.1 Benjakob, Omer (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz.
  27. NHS (22 February 2012). "'Kids grow out of autism' claim unfounded". สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020. Can some children simply "grow out" of autism? The Daily Mail certainly thinks so, and today reported that new research by a "prestigious American university" claims that "not only is this possible, it's also common." The Mail's claim is misleading and may offer a false impression to the parents of children with autism.
  28. Cohen, Tamara (25 October 2011). "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory". Mail Online.
  29. Cannabis Law Reform (26 October 2011). "The Daily Mail – Addicted To Lies And Misinformation About Cannabis". สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020.
  30. "Daily Mail prints correction over GWPF green tax claims". 7 September 2011. สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020.
  31. "Daily Mail confused over whether 'green tax' cost is £85 or £300 as Mail on Sunday uses GWPF £200 figure despite PCC ruling". 19 September 2011. สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020.
  32. "Carbon Brief The Press Complaints Commission and the Daily Mail". 3 October 2011. สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020.
  33. Met Office Press Office (10 January 2013). "Addressing the Daily Mail and James Delingpole's 'crazy climate change obsession' article". สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020.
  34. Met Office Press Office (8 March 2013). "Setting the record straight in the Daily Mail". สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020.
  35. Bowden, George (9 February 2017). "Daily Mail Banned As 'Reliable Source' On Wikipedia in Unprecedented Move". The Huffington Post, UK. Huffington Post. สืบค้นเมื่อ 9 February 2017. The decision was made by the site's community
  36. 36.0 36.1 Harrison, Stephen (1 July 2021). "Wikipedia's War on the Daily Mail". Slate (ภาษาอังกฤษ). สืบค้นเมื่อ 10 July 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (ลิงก์)
  37. Kharpal, Arjun (19 May 2017). "The Daily Mail has 'mastered the art of running stories that aren't true', Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says". CNBC. สืบค้นเมื่อ 16 June 2020.
  38. "Truth or Consequences: Fake news will not be countered by castigating legitimate journalism". The Times. 10 February 2017. p. 29. สืบค้นเมื่อ 16 October 2020.
  39. Waterson, Jim (6 August 2018). "Daily Mail removes 'Powder Keg Paris' report after complaints". The Guardian (ภาษาอังกฤษ). สืบค้นเมื่อ 6 September 2018.
  40. Smith, Patrick (6 August 2018). "Mail Online Deleted An Article About "Illegal Migrants" Overwhelming A Paris Suburb". The Guardian (ภาษาอังกฤษ). สืบค้นเมื่อ 6 September 2018.
  41. Charlotte Tobitt (6 February 2019). "IPSO rules against Daily Mail over report claiming 300,000 illegal migrants lived in one French suburb". สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020.
  42. "05228-18 Versi v Daily Mail". 23 January 2019. สืบค้นเมื่อ 1 August 2020. Decision: Breach - sanction: action as offered by publication
  43. editor, Jim Waterson Media (23 January 2019). "Don't trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: |last1= มีชื่อเรียกทั่วไป (help)
  44. Twitter, James Walker (31 January 2019). "'We were wrong': US news rating tool boosts Mail Online trust ranking after talks with unnamed Daily Mail exec". Press Gazette (ภาษาอังกฤษแบบอเมริกัน). สืบค้นเมื่อ 12 February 2019. {{cite web}}: |last= มีชื่อเรียกทั่วไป (help)

Further reading

แก้
  • Addison, Adrian (2017). Mail Men: The Unauthorized Story of the Daily Mail (Atlantic Books, ).
  • Bingham, Adrian (2013). "'The Paper That Foretold the War': The Daily Mail and the First World War". Daily Mail Historical Archive 1896–2004 (Cengage Learning).
  • Bingham, Adrian, and Martin Conboy (2015). Tabloid Century: The Popular Press in Britain, 1896 to the present.
  • Bingham, Adrian (2013). "The Voice of 'Middle England'? The Daily Mail and Public Life". Daily Mail Historical Archive 1896–2004 (Cengage Learning)
  • McKenzie, Fred Arthur (1921). The Mystery of the Daily Mail, 1896-1921.
  • Taylor, S. J. (1996). The Great Outsiders: Northcliffe, Rothermere and the Daily Mail.

แหล่งข้อมูลอื่น

แก้

ชะรีอะฮ์ (เพิ่มข้อมูล)

แก้

ชะรีอะฮ์ (อาหรับ: شريعة, [ʃaˈriːʕa]) เป็นกฎหมายศาสนาตามธรรมเนียมอิสลาม[1][2][3] ในภาษาอาหรับ คำว่า ชะรีอะฮ์ สื่อถึงกฎสวรรค์ที่เปลี่ยนแปลงไม่ได้ของพระเป็นเจ้า และอยู่ตรงข้ามกับฟิกฮ์ ซึ่งสื่อถึงการตีความทางวิชาการของมนุษย์[4][5][6] ลักษณะการใช้งานในยุคปัจจุบันยังคงพิพาทระหว่างแบบมูลฐานนิยมและนวยุคนิยม[7][2]

Traditional theory of Islamic jurisprudence recognizes four sources of Sharia: the Quran, sunnah (authentic hadith), qiyas (analogical reasoning),[note 1] and ijma (juridical consensus).[9] Different legal schools—of which the most prominent are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafiʽi, and Hanbali—developed methodologies for deriving Sharia rulings from scriptural sources using a process known as ijtihad.[4][5] Traditional jurisprudence (fiqh) distinguishes two principal branches of law, ʿibādāt (rituals) and muʿāmalāt (social relations), which together comprise a wide range of topics.[4][6] Its rulings are concerned with ethical standards as much as with legal norms,[10][11] assigning actions to one of five categories: mandatory, recommended, neutral, abhorred, and prohibited.[4][5][6] Thus, some areas of Sharia overlap with the Western notion of law while others correspond more broadly to living life in accordance with God's will.[5]

Classical jurisprudence was elaborated by private religious scholars, largely through legal opinions (fatwas) issued by qualified jurists (muftis). It was historically applied in Sharia courts by ruler-appointed judges, who dealt mainly with civil disputes and community affairs.[4][6] Sultanic courts, the police and market inspectors administered criminal justice, which was influenced by Sharia but not bound by its rules.[12][6] Non-Muslim (dhimmi) communities had legal autonomy to adjudicate their internal affairs.[5] Over the centuries, Sunni Islam muftis were gradually incorporated into state bureaucracies,[13] and fiqh was complemented by various economic, criminal and administrative laws issued by Muslim rulers.[14] The Ottoman civil code of 1869–1876 was the first partial attempt to codify Sharia.[15]

ในสมัยใหม่ กฎหมายดั้งเดิมของโลกมุสลิมส่วนมากถูกแทนที่ด้วยกฎเกณฑ์ที่ได้รับแรงบันดาลใจจากแม่แบบยุโรป[5][16] Judicial procedures and legal education were likewise brought in line with European practice.[5] While the constitutions of most Muslim-majority states contain references to Sharia, its classical rules were largely retained only in personal status (family) laws.[5] Legislators who codified these laws sought to modernize them without abandoning their foundations in traditional jurisprudence.[5][15] The Islamic revival of the late 20th century brought along calls by Islamism movements for full implementation of Sharia, including hudud corporal punishments, such as stoning.[5][15] In some cases, this resulted in traditionalist legal reform, while other countries witnessed juridical reinterpretation of Sharia advocated by progressive reformers.[5][15][17] Some Muslim-minority countries recognize the use of Sharia-based family laws for their Muslim populations.[18][19] Sharia also continues to influence other aspects of private and public life.

บทบาทของชะรีอะฮ์กลายเป็นหัวข้อที่โต้แย้งกันทั่วโลก[5] การนำกฎหมายที่มีฐานจากชะรีอะฮ์มาใช้ก่อให้เกิดความรุนแรงระหว่างชุมชนในประเทศไนจีเรีย[20][21] and may have contributed to the breakup of Sudan.[5] Some jurisdictions in North America have passed bans on use of Sharia, framed as restrictions on religious or foreign laws[22] ยังมีข้อโต้แย้งว่ากฎหมายชะรีอะฮ์เหมาะสมกับประชาธิปไตย, สิทธิมนุษยชน, เสรีภาพทางความคิด, สิทธิสตรี, สิทธิของ LGBT และการธนาคารหรือไม่[23][24][25]

ชะรีอะฮ์ (อาหรับ: شريعة; อังกฤษ: Sharia/Shari'ah) แปลว่า "ทาง" หรือ "ทางไปสู่แหล่งน้ำ" ใช้หมายถึงประมวลข้อปฏิบัติต่าง ๆ ของกฎหมายศาสนาของศาสนาอิสลาม ที่ครอบคลุมวิถีการดำเนินชีวิตของบุคคลและสาธารณชนที่มีพื้นฐานมาจากหลักนิติศาสตร์ (jurisprudence) ของศาสนาอิสลามสำหรับชาวมุสลิมใช้

กฎหมายชะรีอะฮ์ครอบคลุมด้านต่าง ๆ ของชีวิตประจำวันที่รวมทั้งการปกครอง เศรษฐกิจ การบริหารธุรกิจ การธนาคาร ระบบการทำสัญญา ความสัมพันธ์ในครอบครัว หลักของความสัมพันธ์ทางเพศ หลักการอนามัย และปัญหาของสังคม

กฎหมายชะรีอะฮ์ในปัจจุบันเป็นกฎหมายศาสนาที่ใช้กันอย่างกว้างขวางที่สุดและเป็นกฎหมายที่ปรากฏบ่อยที่สุดของระบบกฎหมายของโลกพอ ๆ กับคอมมอนลอว์ และซีวิลลอว์[26] ในระหว่างยุคทองของอิสลาม กฎหมายอิสลามอาจถือว่ามีอิทธิพลต่อการวิวัฒนาการของคอมมอนลอว์[27] ซึ่งก็ทำให้มีอิทธิพลต่อการวิวัฒนาการของคอมมอนลอว์ระดับสถาบันต่าง ๆ[28]

ดูเพิ่ม

แก้

อ้างอิง

แก้

หมายเหตุ

แก้
  1. Twelver Shia jurisprudence does not recognize the use of qiyas, but relies on reason (ʿaql) in their place.[8]

อ้างอิง

แก้
  1. Bassiouni, M. Cherif (2014) [2013]. "The Sharīa, Islamic Law (Fiqh), and Legal Methods (Ilm Uṣūl al-Fiqh)". ใน Bassiouni, M. Cherif (บ.ก.). The Shari'a and Islamic Criminal Justice in Time of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 18–87. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139629249.003. ISBN 9781139629249. LCCN 2013019592.
  2. 2.0 2.1 "British & World English: sharia". Oxford: Oxford University Press. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 8 December 2015. สืบค้นเมื่อ 4 December 2015.
  3. Editors, History com. "Islam". HISTORY (ภาษาอังกฤษ). เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 3 May 2020. สืบค้นเมื่อ 2020-01-24. {{cite web}}: |last= มีชื่อเรียกทั่วไป (help)
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 John L. Esposito, บ.ก. (2014). "Islamic Law". The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 31 March 2019. สืบค้นเมื่อ 29 January 2017.
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 Vikør 2014.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Calder 2009.
  7. Amanat 2009: "Muslim fundamentalists [...] claim that Shari’a and its sources [...] constitute a divine law that regulates all aspects of Muslim life, as well as Muslim societies and Muslim states [...]. Muslim modernists, [...] on the other hand, criticize the old approaches to Shari’a by traditional Muslim jurists as obsolete and instead advocate innovative approaches to Shari’a that accommodate more pluralist and relativist views within a democratic framework."
  8. Schneider 2014.
  9. John L. Esposito, Natana J. DeLong-Bas (2001), Women in Muslim family law เก็บถาวร 19 ตุลาคม 2017 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน, p. 2. Syracuse University Press, ISBN 978-0815629085. Quote: "[...], by the ninth century, the classical theory of law fixed the sources of Islamic law at four: the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet, qiyas (analogical reasoning), and ijma (consensus)."
  10. Coulson & El Shamsy 2019.
  11. Hallaq 2010, p. 145.
  12. Ziadeh 2009c.
  13. Dallal & Hendrickson 2009.
  14. Stewart 2013, p. 500.
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 Mayer 2009.
  16. Otto 2008, p. 19.
  17. Rabb 2009d.
  18. Otto 2008, pp. 18–20.
  19. Stahnke, Tad and Robert C. Blitt (2005), "The Religion-State Relationship and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Comparative Textual Analysis of the Constitutions of Predominantly Muslim Countries." Georgetown Journal of International Law, volume 36, issue 4; also see Sharia Law profile by Country เก็บถาวร 16 มกราคม 2014 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน, Emory University (2011)
  20. Staff (3 January 2003). "Analysis: Nigeria's Sharia Split" เก็บถาวร 12 กรกฎาคม 2018 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน. BBC News. Retrieved 19 September 2011. "Thousands of people have been killed in fighting between Christians and Muslims following the introduction of sharia punishments in northern Nigerian states over the past three years [...] human rights' groups have complained that these religious laws are archaic and unjust, and create an atmosphere of intimidation against Christians – even though they are not subject to the Sharia.".
  21. Harnischfeger, Johannes (2008).
     • p. 16. "When the Governor of Kaduna announced the introduction of Sharia, although non-Muslims form almost half of the population, violence erupted, leaving more than 1,000 people dead."
     • p. 189. "When a violent confrontation loomed in February 200, because the strong Christian minority in Kaduna was unwilling to accept the proposed sharia law, the sultan and his delegation of 18 emirs went to see the governor and insisted on the passage of the bill."
  22. Thomas, Jeffrey L. (2015). Scapegoating Islam: Intolerance, Security, and the American Muslim. ABC-CLIO. pp. 83–86. ISBN 978-1440831003. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 13 December 2016. สืบค้นเมื่อ 13 January 2017.
  23. An-Na'im, Abdullahi A (1996). "Islamic Foundations of Religious Human Rights". ใน Witte, John; van der Vyver, Johan D. (บ.ก.). Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives. pp. 337–59. ISBN 978-9041101792.
  24. Hajjar, Lisa (2004). "Religion, State Power, and Domestic Violence in Muslim Societies: A Framework for Comparative Analysis". Law & Social Inquiry. 29 (1): 1–38. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2004.tb00329.x. JSTOR 4092696. S2CID 145681085.
  25. Al-Suwaidi, J. (1995). Arab and western conceptions of democracy; in Democracy, war, and peace in the Middle East (Editors: David Garnham, Mark A. Tessler), Indiana University Press, see Chapters 5 and 6; ISBN 978-0253209399[ต้องการเลขหน้า]
  26. (Badr 1978)
  27. (Makdisi 1999)
  28. (Badr 1978, pp. 196–8)

ข้อมูล

แก้
  • Abiad, Nisrine (2008). Sharia, Muslim States and International Human Rights Treaty Obligations: A Comparative Study. British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
  • Ali, Kecia (2010). Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam. Harvard University Press.
  • Amanat, Abbas (2009). "Preface". ใน Abbas Amanat; Frank Griffel (บ.ก.). Shari'a: Islamic Law in the Contemporary Context. Stanford University Press (Kindle Edition).
  • An-Na'im, Abdullahi Ahmed (1996). "Islamic Foundations of Religious Human Rights" (PDF). ใน Witte, John Jr.; Van der Vyver, Johan David (บ.ก.). Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives. Vol. 1. The Hague / Boston / London: Martinus Nijhoff. ISBN 9789041101761. คลังข้อมูลเก่าเก็บจากแหล่งเดิม (PDF)เมื่อ 16 January 2014.
  • Berger, Maurits S. (2014). "Fatwa". ใน Emad El-Din Shahin (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press.
  • Berkey, Jonathan Porter (2003). The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800. Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, Jonathan A. C. (2009). "Maṣlaḥah". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Brown, Jonathan A. C. (2017). "Stoning and Hand Cutting—Understanding the Hudud and the Shariah in Islam". Yaqeen Institute. สืบค้นเมื่อ Mar 24, 2019.
  • Calder, Norman; Hooker, Michael Barry (2007). "S̲h̲arīʿa". ใน P. Bearman; Th. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel; W.P. Heinrichs (บ.ก.). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 9 (2nd ed.). Brill. pp. 321–26.
  • Calder, Norman (2009). "Law. Legal Thought and Jurisprudence". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chan, Sewell (2016). "Saudi Arabia Moves to Curb Its Feared Religious Police". The New York Times. สืบค้นเมื่อ 18 April 2018.
  • Coulson, Noel James; El Shamsy, Ahmed (2019). "Sharīʿah". Encyclopædia Britannica.
  • Dallal, Ahmad S.; Hendrickson, Jocelyn (2009). "Fatwā. Modern usage". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Duderija, Adis (2014). Adis Duderija (บ.ก.). Contemporary Muslim Reformist Thought and Maqāṣid cum Maṣlaḥa Approaches to Islamic Law: An Introduction. Vol. Maqasid al-Shari’a and Contemporary Reformist Muslim Thought: An Examination. Springer.
  • El Achi, Soha (2018). "Slavery". ใน Jonathan Brown (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Law. Oxford University Press.
  • Esposito, John L.; DeLong-Bas, Natana J. (2018). Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press.
  • Gleave, R.M. (2012). "Maḳāṣid al-Sharīʿa". ใน P. Bearman; Th. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel; W.P. Heinrichs (บ.ก.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.). Brill. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_8809.
  • Glenn, H. Patrick (2014). Legal Traditions of the World – Sustainable Diversity in Law (5th edition) ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199669837
  • Hallaq, Wael B. (2009). An Introduction to Islamic Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521678735.
  • Hallaq, Wael B. (2009b). Sharī'a: Theory, Practice, Transformations. Cambridge University Press (Kindle edition).
  • Hallaq, Wael B. (2010). "Islamic Law: History and Transformation". ใน Robert Irwin (บ.ก.). The New Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. Volume 4. Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  • Harnischfeger, Johannes (2008). Democratization and Islamic Law – The Sharia Conflict in Nigeria. Frankfurt; New York City: Campus Verlag and Chicago: University of Chicago Press (distributor). ISBN 978-3593382562.
  • Hardy, P. (1991). "Djizya. iii. India". ใน P. Bearman; Th. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel; W.P. Heinrichs (บ.ก.). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 2 (2nd ed.). Brill.
  • Hendrickson, Jocelyn (2013). "Fatwa". ใน Gerhard Böwering, Patricia Crone (บ.ก.). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton University Press.
  • Hodgson, Marshall G. S. (1974). The Venture of Islam, Volume 3: The Gunpowder Empires and Modern Times. University of Chicago Press (Kindle edition).
  • Holland, Tom (2012). In the Shadow of the Sword. UK: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-53135-1. สืบค้นเมื่อ 29 August 2019.
  • Horrie, Chris; Chippindale, Peter (1991). What Is Islam? A Comprehensive Introduction. Virgin Books. ISBN 978-0753508275.
  • Hussin, Iza (2014). "Sunni Schools of Jurisprudence". ใน Emad El-Din Shahin (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001. ISBN 9780199739356.
  • Jokisch, Benjamin (2015). "Origins of and Influences on Islamic law". ใน Anver M. Emon; Rumee Ahmed (บ.ก.). The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199679010.001.0001. ISBN 9780199679010.
  • Jones-Pauly, Cristina (2009). "Codes and Codification". ใน Stanley N. Katz (บ.ก.). Codes and Codification. Islamic Law. The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195134056.001.0001. ISBN 9780195134056.
  • Khadduri, Majid (1955). War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. OCLC 647084498.
  • Kamali, Mohammad Hashim (1999). John Esposito (บ.ก.). Law and Society. Vol. The Oxford History of Islam. Oxford University Press (Kindle edition).
  • Khadduri, Majid; Liebesny, Herbert J., บ.ก. (1955). Law in the Middle East. Middle East Institute. OCLC 578890367.
  • Lapidus, Ira M. (2014). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press (Kindle edition). ISBN 978-0521514309.
  • Lapidus, Ira M.; Salaymeh, Lena (2014). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press (Kindle edition). ISBN 978-0-521-51430-9.
  • Lewis, Bernard (1992). Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry. Oxford University Press.
  • Mack, Gregory (2018). "Ḥisbah". ใน Jonathan Brown (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Law. Oxford University Press.
  • Masters, Bruce (2009). "Dhimmi". ใน Gábor Ágoston; Bruce Masters (บ.ก.). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. Infobase Publishing.
  • Masud, Muhammad Khalid (2009). "Anglo-Muhammadan Law". ใน Kate Fleet; Gudrun Krämer; Denis Matringe; John Nawas; Everett Rowson (บ.ก.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (3rd ed.). Brill. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_22716.
  • Masud, Muhammad Khalid; Kéchichian, Joseph A. (2009). "Fatwā. Concepts of Fatwā". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Mayer, Ann Elizabeth (2009). "Law. Modern Legal Reform". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Messick, Brinkley (2017). "Fatwā, modern". ใน Kate Fleet; Gudrun Krämer; Denis Matringe; John Nawas; Everett Rowson (บ.ก.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (3rd ed.). Brill. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_27049.
  • Messick, Brinkley; Kéchichian, Joseph A. (2009). "Fatwā. Process and Function". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Muslih, Muhammad; Browers, Michaelle (2009). "Democracy". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Nettler, Ronald L. (2009). "Dhimmī". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195305135.001.0001. ISBN 9780195305135.
  • Opwis, Felicitas (2007). Abbas Amanat; Frank Griffel (บ.ก.). Islamic Law and Legal Change: The Concept of Maslaha in Classical and Contemporary Legal Theory. Vol. Shari'a: Islamic Law in the Contemporary Context (Kindle ed.). Stanford University Press.
  • Otto, Jan Michiel (2008). Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries: Tensions and Opportunities for Dutch and EU Foreign Policy (PDF). Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-9087280482.
  • Otto, Jan Michiel, บ.ก. (2010). Sharia Incorporated: A Comparative Overview of the Legal Systems of Twelve Muslim Countries in Past and Present. Leiden University Press. ISBN 978-9400600171.
  • Rabb, Intisar A. (2009). "Law. Courts". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Rabb, Intisar A. (2009b). "Fiqh". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195305135.001.0001. ISBN 9780195305135.
  • Rabb, Intisar A. (2009c). "Ijtihād". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195305135.001.0001. ISBN 9780195305135.
  • Rabb, Intisar A. (2009d). "Law. Civil Law". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Schacht, Joseph; Layish, Aharon (2000). "Ṭalāḳ". ใน P. Bearman; Th. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel; W.P. Heinrichs (บ.ก.). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. 10 (2nd ed.). Brill.
  • Schneider, Irene (2014). "Fiqh". ใน Emad El-Din Shahin (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001. ISBN 9780199739356.
  • Stewart, Devin J. (2013). "Shari'a". ใน Gerhard Böwering, Patricia Crone (บ.ก.). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton University Press.
  • Tellenbach, Silvia (2015). "Islamic Criminal Law". ใน Markus D. Dubber; Tatjana Hornle (บ.ก.). The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199673599
  • Thielmann, Jörn (2017). "Ḥisba (modern times)". ใน Kate Fleet; Gudrun Krämer; Denis Matringe; John Nawas; Everett Rowson (บ.ก.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (3rd ed.). Brill. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_30485.
  • Tillier, Mathieu (2014). "Courts". ใน Emad El-Din Shahin (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001. ISBN 9780199739356.
  • Vikør, Knut S. (2005). Between God and the Sultan: A History of Islamic Law. Oxford University Press.
  • Vikør, Knut S. (2014). "Sharīʿah". ใน Emad El-Din Shahin (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford University Press. คลังข้อมูลเก่าเก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ June 4, 2014.
  • Ziadeh, Farhat J. (2009). "Uṣūl al-fiqh". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195305135.001.0001. ISBN 9780195305135.
  • Ziadeh, Farhat J. (2009b). "Law. Sunnī Schools of Law". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ziadeh, Farhat J. (2009c). "Criminal Law". ใน John L. Esposito (บ.ก.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

อ่านเพิ่ม

แก้

แหล่งข้อมูลอื่น

แก้


พระโคตมพุทธเจ้า (แปลส่วนหนึ่ง)

แก้
พระโคตมพุทธเจ้า
 
ข้อมูลทั่วไป
พระนามเดิมสิทธัตถะ
พระนามอื่นอังคีรส
วันประสูติขึ้น 15 ค่ำ เดือน 6 80 ปีก่อนพุทธศักราช
สถานที่ประสูติลุมพินีวัน,   เนปาล
สถานที่บวชริมฝั่งแม่น้ำอโนมา
สถานที่บรรลุธรรมใต้ต้นพระศรีมหาโพธิ์ ริมฝั่งแม่น้ำเนรัญชรา
ตำแหน่งพระพุทธเจ้า
ปรินิพพานขึ้น 15 ค่ำ เดือน 6 (ตามคติเถรวาท)
สถานที่ปรินิพพานกุสินารา,   อินเดีย
ฐานะเดิม
ชาวเมืองกบิลพัสดุ์,   เนปาล
พระบิดาพระเจ้าสุทโธทนะ
พระมารดาพระนางสิริมหามายา
วรรณะเดิมกษัตริย์
ราชวงศ์ศากยะ
สถานที่รำลึก
สถานที่สังเวชนียสถาน 4 ตำบล คือ ลุมพินีวัน พุทธคยา สารนาถ กุสินารา
อารามสำคัญ คือ วัดเวฬุวัน วัดเชตวัน
  ส่วนหนึ่งของสารานุกรมพระพุทธศาสนา

พระโคตมพุทธเจ้า (ออกเสียง: โค-ตะ-มะ) มีพระนามเดิมในภาษาบาลีว่า สิทฺธตฺถ โคตม หรือในภาษาสันสกฤตว่า สิทฺธารฺถ เคาตมะ (อ่านว่า /สิดทาด —/) (เทวนาครี: सिद्धार्थ गौतम) เป็นพระพุทธเจ้าพระองค์ปัจจุบัน ผู้เป็นศาสดาของศาสนาพุทธ สาวกของพระองค์ไม่นิยมออกพระนามโดยตรง แต่เรียกตามพระสมัญญาว่า "ภควา" (พระผู้มีพระภาคเจ้า)[1]

คัมภีร์พุทธศาสนาทั้งนิกายเถรวาทและนิกายมหายานบันทึกตรงกันว่า พระโคตมพุทธเจ้าทรงประสูติ 623 ปี ก่อนคริสต์ศักราช พระองค์ทรงดำรงพระชนมชีพอยู่ระหว่าง 80 ปีก่อนพุทธศักราช จนถึงเริ่มพุทธศักราชซึ่งเป็นวันปรินิพพาน ตรงกับ 543 ปี ก่อนคริสตกาลตามตำราไทยซึ่งอ้างอิงปฏิทินสุริยคติไทยและปฏิทินจันทรคติไทย และตรงกับ 483 ปีก่อนคริสตกาลตามปฏิทินสากล[2]

พระโคตมพุทธเจ้าเป็นพระราชโอรสของพระเจ้าสุทโธทนะและพระนางสิริมหามายาแห่งแคว้นสักกะ โคตมโคตร อันเป็นราชสกุลวงศ์ที่ปกครองกรุงกบิลพัสดุ์มาช้านาน ก่อนออกผนวชทรงดำรงพระอิสสริยยศเป็นรัชทายาท เมื่อเสด็จออกผนวชและบรรลุสัมมาสัมโพธิญาณเป็นพระพุทธเจ้าแล้ว ทรงได้รับการถวายพระนามต่าง ๆ อาทิ พระศากยมุนี, พระพุทธโคดม, พระโคดมพุทธเจ้า ฯลฯ แต่ทรงเรียกพระองค์เองว่า ตถาคต แปลว่า พระผู้ไปแล้วอย่างนั้น[3] คือ ทรงปฏิญาณว่า ทรงพ้นจากทุกข์ทั้งปวง สำเร็จแล้วซึ่งอรหัตผล[4]

Waniosa Amedestir/ทดลองเขียน
 
ชื่ออื่นศากยมุนี
ส่วนบุคคล
เกิด
สิทธัตถะ โคตม

ป. 563 ปีก่อน ค.ศ. หรือ 480 ปีก่อน ค.ศ.
ลุมพินี สักกชนบท (ตามธรรมเนียมพุทธ)[a]
มรณภาพป. 483 ปีก่อน ค.ศ. หรือ 400 ปีก่อน ค.ศ. (80 พรรษา)[5][6][7][b]
กุสินารา แคว้นมัลละ (ตามธรรมเนียมพุทธ)[c]
ที่ฝังศพเผา; แบ่งอัฐิในหมู่ผู้นับถือ
คู่สมรสพระยโสธราเถรี
บุตร
บุพการี
รู้จักจากผู้ก่อตั้งศาสนาพุทธ
ชื่ออื่นศากยมุนี
ตำแหน่งชั้นสูง
ผู้ดำรงตำแหน่งก่อนหน้าพระกัสสปพุทธเจ้า
ผู้ดำรงตำแหน่งถัดมาพระศรีอริยเมตไตรย
ชื่อสันสกฤต
สันสกฤตสิทฺธารฺถ เคาตมะ
ชื่อบาลี
บาลีสิทฺธตฺถ โคตม

พระโคตมพุทธเจ้า เป็นสมณะและผู้นำศาสนาที่มีชีวิตในเอเชียใต้เมื่อศตวรรษที่ 6 ถึง 5 ก่อนคริสตืศักราช[8][9][10][b] และเป้นผู้ก่อตั้งศาสนาพุทธ

ตามพุทธประเพณี พระองค์ประสูติที่ลุมพินี (ปัจจุบันอยูในประเทศเนปาล)[a] จากพระราชบิดามารดาในตระกูลศากยะ แต่สละจากคฤหัสถ์เพื่อใช้ชีวิตเป็นสมณะ[11][d] หลังแสวงหา life of mendicancy, asceticism, and meditation, พระองค์จึงได้รับการตรัสรู้ที่พุทธคยา (ปัจจุบันอยู่ในประเทศอินเดีย) หลังจากนั้น พระองค์จึงเดินทางทั่วที่ราบลุ่มแม่น้ำสินธุ-คงคาตอนล่าง ให้เทศน์และจัดตั้งคณะสงฆ์ พระองค์สอนในด้านทางสายกลางระหว่าง sensual indulgence and severe asceticism,[12] นำไปสู่นิพพาน[e] นั่นคือ ปลอดจากอวิชชา, อุปาทาน, การกลับชาติมาเกิดและทุกข์ คำสอนของพระองค์ได้รับการสรุปไว้ในมรรคมีองค์แปด, a training of the mind that includes ethical training and meditative practices such as sense restraint, kindness toward others, mindfulness, and jhana/dhyana (meditation proper). He died in Kushinagar, attaining parinirvana.[c] The Buddha has since been venerated by numerous religions and communities across Asia.

หลังจากปรินิพพานเพียงไม่กี่ศตวรรษ พระองค์กลายเป็นที่รู้จักด้วยตำแหน่ง พุทธะ ที่หมายถึง "ผู้รู้แจ้ง" or "Enlightened One."[13] His teachings were compiled by the Buddhist community in the Vinaya, his codes for monastic practice, and the Sutta Piṭaka, a compilation of teachings based on his discourses. These were passed down in Middle Indo-Aryan dialects through an oral tradition.[14][15] Later generations composed additional texts, such as systematic treatises known as Abhidharma, biographies of the Buddha, collections of stories about his past lives known as Jataka tales, and additional discourses, i.e., the Mahayana sutras.[16][17]

ศัพทมูลวิทยา พระนาม และตำแหน่ง

แก้
 
The Buddha, Tapa Shotor monastery in Hadda, Afghanistan, 2nd century CE

Siddhārtha Gautama and Buddha Shakyamuni

แก้

According to Donald Lopez Jr., "... he tended to be known as either Buddha or Sakyamuni in China, Korea, Japan, and Tibet, and as either Gotama Buddha or Samana Gotama (“the ascetic Gotama”) in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia."[18]

Buddha, "Awakened One" or "Enlightened One,"[13][19][f] is the masculine form of budh (बुध् ), "to wake, be awake, observe, heed, attend, learn, become aware of, to know, be conscious again,"[20] "to awaken"[21][22] ""to open up" (as does a flower),"[22] "one who has awakened from the deep sleep of ignorance and opened his consciousness to encompass all objects of knowledge."[22] It is not a personal name, but a title for those who have attained bodhi (awakening, enlightenment).[21] Buddhi, the power to "form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, understand,"[20] is the faculty which discerns truth (satya) from falsehood.

The name of his clan was Gautama (Pali: Gotama). His given name, "Siddhārtha" (Sanskrit; P. Siddhattha; T. Don grub; C. Xidaduo; J. Shiddatta/Shittatta; K. Siltalta) means "He Who Achieves His Goal."[23] The clan name of Gautama means "descendant of Gotama", "Gotama" meaning "one who has the most light,"[24] and comes from the fact that Kshatriya clans adopted the names of their house priests.[25][26]

While the term "Buddha" is used in the Agamas and the Pali Canon, the oldest surviving written records of the term "Buddha" is from the middle of the 3rd century BCE, when several Edicts of Ashoka (reigned c. 269–232 BCE) mention the Buddha and Buddhism.[27][28] Ashoka's Lumbini pillar inscription commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to Lumbini as the Buddha's birthplace, calling him the Buddha Shakyamuni[g] (Brahmi script: 𑀩𑀼𑀥 𑀲𑀓𑁆𑀬𑀫𑀼𑀦𑀻 Bu-dha Sa-kya-mu-nī, "Buddha, Sage of the Shakyas").[29]

Shakyamuni (ภาษาสันสกฤต: [ɕaːkjɐmʊnɪ bʊddʱɐ]) means "Sage of the Shakyas."[30]

Tathāgata

แก้

Tathāgata (Pali; แม่แบบ:IPA-pi) is a term the Buddha commonly used when referring to himself or other Buddhas in the Pāli Canon.[31] The exact meaning of the term is unknown, but it is often thought to mean either "one who has thus gone" (tathā-gata), "one who has thus come" (tathā-āgata), or sometimes "one who has thus not gone" (tathā-agata). This is interpreted as signifying that the Tathāgata is beyond all coming and going – beyond all transitory phenomena.[32] A tathāgata is "immeasurable", "inscrutable", "hard to fathom", and "not apprehended."[33]

Other epithets

แก้

A list of other epithets is commonly seen together in canonical texts and depicts some of his perfected qualities:[34]

  • Bhagavato (Bhagavan) – The Blessed one, one of the most used epithets, together with tathāgata[31]
  • Sammasambuddho – Perfectly self-awakened
  • Vijja-carana-sampano – Endowed with higher knowledge and ideal conduct.
  • Sugata – Well-gone or Well-spoken.
  • Lokavidu – Knower of the many worlds.
  • Anuttaro Purisa-damma-sarathi – Unexcelled trainer of untrained people.
  • Satthadeva-Manussanam – Teacher of gods and humans.
  • Araham – Worthy of homage. An Arahant is "one with taints destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely liberated through final knowledge."
  • Jina – Conqueror. Although the term is more commonly used to name an individual who has attained liberation in the religion Jainism, it is also an alternative title for the Buddha.[35]

The Pali Canon also contains numerous other titles and epithets for the Buddha, including: All-seeing, All-transcending sage, Bull among men, The Caravan leader, Dispeller of darkness, The Eye, Foremost of charioteers, Foremost of those who can cross, King of the Dharma (Dharmaraja), Kinsman of the Sun, Helper of the World (Lokanatha), Lion (Siha), Lord of the Dhamma, Of excellent wisdom (Varapañña), Radiant One, Torchbearer of mankind, Unsurpassed doctor and surgeon, Victor in battle, and Wielder of power.[36] Another epithet, used at inscriptions throughout South and Southeast Asia, is Maha sramana, "great sramana" (ascetic, renunciate).

อ้างอิง

แก้

หมายเหตุ

แก้
  1. 1.0 1.1 According to the Buddhist tradition, following the Nidanakatha (Fausböll, Davids & Davids 1878, p. [ต้องการเลขหน้า]), the introductory to the Jataka tales, the stories of the former lives of the Buddha, Gautama was born in Lumbini, now in modern Nepal, but then part of the territory of the Shakya-clan.[37][38] In the mid-3rd century BCE the Emperor Ashoka determined that Lumbini was Gautama's birthplace and thus installed a pillar there with the inscription: "...this is where the Buddha, sage of the Śākyas (Śākyamuni), was born." (Gethin 1998, p. 19)

    Based on stone inscriptions, there is also speculation that Lumbei, Kapileswar village, Odisha, at the east coast of India, was the site of ancient Lumbini. (Mahāpātra 1977; Mohāpātra 2000, p. 114; Tripathy 2014 Hartmann discusses the hypothesis and states, "The inscription has generally been considered spurious (...)" Hartmann 1991, pp. 38–39 He quotes Sircar: "There can hardly be any doubt that the people responsible for the Kapilesvara inscription copied it from the said facsimile not much earlier than 1928."

    Kapilavastu was the place where he grew up:Keown & Prebish 2013, p. 436[h]
    • Warder (2000, p. 45): "The Buddha [...] was born in the Sakya Republic, which was the city state of Kapilavastu, a very small state just inside the modern state boundary of Nepal against the Northern Indian frontier.
    • Walshe (1995, p. 20): "He belonged to the Sakya clan dwelling on the edge of the Himalayas, his actual birthplace being a few kilometres north of the present-day Northern Indian border, in Nepal. His father was, in fact, an elected chief of the clan rather than the king he was later made out to be, though his title was raja—a term which only partly corresponds to our word 'king'. Some of the states of North India at that time were kingdoms and others republics, and the Sakyan republic was subject to the powerful king of neighbouring Kosala, which lay to the south".
    • The exact location of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown.(Keown & Prebish 2013, p. 436) It may have been either Piprahwa in Uttar Pradesh, northern India (Nakamura 1980, p. 18; Srivastava 1979, pp. 61–74; Srivastava 1980, p. 108), or Tilaurakot (Tuladhar 2002, pp. 1–7), present-day Nepal (Huntington 1986, Keown & Prebish 2013, p. 436). The two cities are located only 24 กิโลเมตร (15 ไมล์) from each other (Huntington 1986).
    See also Conception and birth and Birthplace Sources
  2. 2.0 2.1 อ้างอิงผิดพลาด: ป้ายระบุ <ref> ไม่ถูกต้อง ไม่มีการกำหนดข้อความสำหรับอ้างอิงชื่อ dating
  3. 3.0 3.1 According to Mahaparinibbana Sutta (see Äccess to insight," Maha-parinibbana Sutta), Gautama died in Kushinagar, which is located in present-day Uttar Pradesh, India.
  4. Buswell & Lopez 2014, p. entry "Sakyamuni" refer to the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, noting: "Buddha's quest for enlightenment occurs in the ARIYAPARIYESANĀSUTTA. It is noteworthy that many of the most familiar events in the Buddha's life are absent in some of the early accounts."
    The Ariyapariyesana Sutta says: "So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.
  5. "Nirvana": literally, vanishing or extinguishing.
  6. The translation of "bodhi" and "Buddha" has shifted over time. While translated as "enlightenment" and "the enlightened one" since the 19th century, following Max Muller (Cohen 2006, p. 9), the preferred translation has shifted to "awakened" and "awakened one" (Bodhi 2020; Abrahams 2021:
    • Gimello (2003, p. entry "Bodhi (awakening"): "The Sanskrit and Pāli word bodhi derives from the Indic root [.radical] budh (to awaken, to know) [...] Those who are attentive to the more literal meaning of the Indic original tend to translate bodhi into English as "awakening," and this is to be recommended. However, it has long been conventional to translate it as "enlightenment," despite the risks of multiple misrepresentation attendant upon the use of so heavily freighted an English word."
    • Norman (1997, p. 29): "From the fourth jhana he gained bodhi. It is not at all clear what gaining bodhi means. We are accustomed to the translation "enlightenment" for bodhi, but this is misleading for two reasons. First, it can be confused with the use of the word to describe the development in European thought and culture in the eighteenth century, and second, it suggests that light is being shed on something, whereas there is no hint of the meaning "light" in the root budh- which underlies the word bodhi. The root means "to wake up, to be awake, to be awakened", and a buddha is someone who has been awakened. Besides the ordinary sense of being awakened by something, e.g. a noise, it can also mean "awakened to something". The desire to get the idea of "awakened" in English translations of buddha explains the rather peculiar Victorian quasi-poetical translation "the wake" which we sometimes find."
    • Bikkhu Bodhi objects to this shift: "The classical Pali text on grammar, Saddanīti, assigns to this root the meanings of “knowing (or understanding),” “blossoming,” and “waking up,” in that order of importance. The Pali-Sanskrit noun buddhi, which designates the intellect or faculty of cognition, is derived from budh, yet entails no sense of “awakening.” Further, when we look at the ordinary use of verbs based on budh in the Pali suttas, we can see that these verbs mean “to know, to understand, to recognize.” My paper cites several passages where rendering the verb as “awakens” would stretch the English word beyond its ordinary limits. In those contexts, “knows,” “understands,” “recognizes,” or “realizes” would fit much better. The verbs derived from budh that do mean “awaken” are generally preceded by a prefix, but they are not used to refer to the Buddha's attainment of bodhi." (Bodhi 2020; Abrahams 2021)
    • Buddhadasa (2017, p. 5) gives several translations, including "the knowing one": "This is how we understand "Buddha" in Thailand, as the Awakened One, the Knowing One, and the Blossomed One."
  7. เสียงอ่านภาษาสันสกฤต: [ɕɑːkjəmuni]
  8. Some sources mention Kapilavastu as the birthplace of the Buddha. Gethin states: "The earliest Buddhist sources state that the future Buddha was born Siddhārtha Gautama (Pali Siddhattha Gotama), the son of a local chieftain—a rājan—in Kapilavastu (Pali Kapilavatthu) what is now Nepal."Gethin 1998, p. 14 Gethin does not give references for this statement.

อ้างอิงผิดพลาด: ป้ายระบุ <ref> ชื่อ "name_the_buddha" ซึ่งนิยามใน <references> ไม่ถูกใช้ในข้อความก่อนหน้า

อ้างอิงผิดพลาด: ป้ายระบุ <ref> ชื่อ "Upaddha" ซึ่งนิยามใน <references> ไม่ถูกใช้ในข้อความก่อนหน้า

อ้างอิง

แก้
  1. เวรัญชกัณฑ์, พระไตรปิฎก เล่มที่ ๑ พระวินัยปิฎก เล่มที่ ๑ มหาวิภังค์ ภาค ๑
  2. L. S. Cousins (1996), "The dating of the historical Buddha เก็บถาวร 2011-02-26 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน: a review article", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (3) 6 (1) : 57–63.
  3. ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน. (2551, 9 กุมภาพันธ์). พจนานุกรมฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน พ.ศ. 2542. [ออนไลน์]. เข้าถึงได้จาก: < http://rirs3.royin.go.th/new-search/word-search-all-x.asp เก็บถาวร 2009-03-03 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน >. (เข้าถึงเมื่อ: 18 ตุลาคม 2551).
  4. ปปัญจสูทนี-อรรถกถา มัชฌิมนิกาย มูลปัณณาสก์ มูลปริยายวรรค มูลปริยายสูตร. อรรถกถาพระไตรปิฎกฉบับมกุฏราชวิทยาลัย. [ออนไลน์]. แหล่งข้อมูล: http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/attha/attha.php?b=12&i=1&p=5
  5. Cousins (1996), pp. 57–63.
  6. Norman (1997), p. 33.
  7. Prebish (2008).
  8. Gethin (1998), pp. 5, 9, 10, 14.
  9. Strong (2001), p. 1.
  10. Warder (2000), p. 45.
  11. Buswell & Lopez 2014, p. entry "Sakyamuni".
  12. Laumakis (2008), p. 4.
  13. 13.0 13.1 Gethin (1998), p. 8.
  14. Gethin (1998), pp. 40–41.
  15. Warder (2000), pp. 4–7, 44.
  16. Warder (2000), p. 4.
  17. Cox (2003), p. 1–7.
  18. Donald Lopez Jr., The Scientific Buddha: His Short and Happy Life, Yale University Press, p.24
  19. Buswell & Lopez 2014, p. 398.
  20. 20.0 20.1 Sir Monier Monier-Williams; Ernst Leumann; Carl Cappeller (2002). A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European Languages. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 733. ISBN 978-81-208-3105-6. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 11 January 2023. สืบค้นเมื่อ 23 October 2022.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Keown (2003), p. 42.
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 Buswell & Lopez 2014, p. 398, entry "Buddha".
  23. Buswell & Lopez 2014, p. 817.
  24. Bopearachchi, Osmund (1 January 2021). "GREEK HELIOS OR INDIAN SŪRYA? THE SPREAD OF THE SUN GOD IMAGERY FROM INDIA TO GANDHĀRA". Connecting the Ancient West and East. Studies Presented to Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, Edited by J. Boardman, J. Hargrave, A. Avram and A. Podossinov, Monographs in Antiquity: 946. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 13 September 2022. สืบค้นเมื่อ 18 August 2022.
  25. Witzel, Michael (2012). "Ṛṣis". Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online. Brill.
  26. Macdonell, Arthur Anthony; Keith, Arthur Berriedale (1912). Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. Vol. 1. John Murray. p. 240.
  27. Bary (2011), p. 8.
  28. Fogelin (2015).
  29. Hultzsch (1925), p. 164.
  30. Baroni (2002), p. 230.
  31. 31.0 31.1 Buswell & Lopez 2014, p. Entry "Tathāgata".
  32. Chalmers, Robert. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1898. pp.103-115 เก็บถาวร 13 สิงหาคม 2012 ที่ เวย์แบ็กแมชชีน
  33. Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press 1995, p.227
  34. Dhammananda, Ven. Dr. K. Sri, Great Virtues of the Buddha (PDF), Dhamma talks, เก็บ (PDF)จากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 26 August 2013, สืบค้นเมื่อ 28 July 2013
  35. Roshen Dalal (2014). The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths. Penguin Books. ISBN 9788184753967. เก็บจากแหล่งเดิมเมื่อ 11 January 2023. สืบค้นเมื่อ 6 May 2020. Entry: "Jina"
  36. Snyder, David N. (2006) "The Complete Book of Buddha's Lists--explained." Vipassana Foundation, list 605 p. 429.
  37. อ้างอิงผิดพลาด: ป้ายระบุ <ref> ไม่ถูกต้อง ไม่มีการกำหนดข้อความสำหรับอ้างอิงชื่อ WHC
  38. อ้างอิงผิดพลาด: ป้ายระบุ <ref> ไม่ถูกต้อง ไม่มีการกำหนดข้อความสำหรับอ้างอิงชื่อ Victoria and Albert Museum