Talk:The Buddha/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

TERRIBLE SPELLING

This article needs proofreading 2A00:23C5:9F17:9901:5981:7911:432B:596E (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out any misspellings? JungleEntity (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

Regarding the article on The Buddha under the section: Understanding the historical person under subsection Dating, I noticed in the dates in the paragraph regarding the accepted dates in Sri Lanka and South-East Asia are one year off.

The paragraph reads:

“According to these chronicles Asoka was crowned in 326 BCE, which gives the dates of 624 and 544 BCE for the Buddha, which are the accepted dates in Sri Lanka and South-East Asia.”

These dates are off by one year and should be: 623 and 543 as the accepted dates in SE Asia. In Thailand, Cambodia, etc., for example the current year is 2566 BE. So by subtracting 2023 AD from 2566 BE, results in a 543 year difference, not a 544 year difference. Thereby putting the historical Buddha’s birth and death at 623 and 543. These are the dates used in SE Asia. So I believe the article listing the dates of 624 and 544 to be typos or incorrect. 2001:FB1:42:950F:59D3:9B54:FF97:F524 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the source used for those dates, and all it gives is the Buddha's birthday as circa 563 BC. This source (also used in the Buddha's Birthday article) gives 623 as well, but doesn't exactly state if this is the SE Asia dating or not. This one, citing "The Theravada school using Sri Lankan chronicles" (also citing an actual book) says 564. If anyone finds a better source, please update the article with it! Good catch OP! JungleEntity (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per JungleEntity. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

The six sense bases only show five senses, they are missing "eye and sight".

change "The six sense bases are ear and sound, nose and odour, tongue and taste, body and touch, and mind and thoughts" to The six sense bases are eye and sight, ear and sound, nose and odour, tongue and taste, body and touch, and mind and thoughts. DavehackerWiki (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, clearly the sense base that was missing when the text was first added. Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

typo: change input feom to input from DavehackerWiki (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Ascetic Sumedha and Dipankara Buddha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead line

The paragraph should atleast include 'India' as he spent good time doing renuciation(in Bodhgaya) as well as a spiritual teacher. Don't you think so? South Asia doesn't even conclude that he had most in common with India.223.190.135.195 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

The word "Parinirvana" in this sentence: "He died in Kushinagar, attaining paranirvana.[d]" is spelled P-A-R-A-N-I-R-V-A-N-A, instead of how it is really spelled: P-A-R-I-N-I-R-V-A-N-A. DiefferGhossss (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

buddha

It is stated in the intro that Buddha "founded Buddhism". This is not strictly true as Buddhism was created and proliferated by later followers. Chridman (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chridman: It is what the reliable sources say, and therefore, so do we. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot If you bothered to check the passage, you'd see that the statement is unsourced. I see no problem in rewording it. ~~~~ — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri, the lead sentence you see now was hammered out after extensive discussion, including Rfcs. There was lively disagreement on a number of issues, but not about that point. If you think "founder of Buddhism" is something that needs sourcing, feel free to do so. Several dozen sources were listed during those discussions that mentioned "founder of Buddhism" or words to that effect as part of the description; in fact, it is the one of the most common assertions about the Buddha to appear in reliable sources; see this list. For other viewpoints, see the Archives. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And behold, your list proves its long-term utility again. Yes, 'founder', is all over it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

line 3: ... and founded Buddhism.

Buddha certainly NEVER founded Buddhism (like Jesus never 'founded' Christianity). Organised religions usually appear 100s of years after the life of the enlightened Master (not that Jesus was definiteley enlightened) because some 'people' start drawing power and advantage from the wisdom of the -ism's origin. Every '-ism' is only an institutionalised, rather dead, knowledgeable copy of the original and tries to prevent searchers to find their individual way, just as Gautama Siddhartha - and many others - did who certainly NEVER followed any '-ism'... 89.247.171.247 (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. And, particularly, this list of sources.RegentsPark (comment) 14:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Buddha → Buddha – Procedural note: Previous The Buddha to Buddha move discussion was nearly a year ago and resulted in no consensus rather than overwhelming oppose and there's more to its rationale, so I'd like to reevaluate.

The definite article in the title looks like hypercorrection. Firstly, in terms of WP:THE: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not". Here "the" is not an inseparable capitalized part of the proper name, as in The Crown, The New York Times or The Beatles. At the same time, whenever Buddha is mentioned, Siddhartha Gautama is typically assumed, making him WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - which is apparently why Buddha currently redirects to The Buddha rather than to Buddha (disambiguation). So confusion here is negligible, it's not the issue of crown vs The Crown mentioned there. As such, the argument from the previous move discussion that "the definite article "The" is required, and justified by the guideline WP:THE, to distinguish "The Buddha" from the broader concept of buddhas or buddahood" is miscalibrated optics. Secondly, major reference works have their entries at Buddha, rather than The Buddha: Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary, etc. All this favors dropping "the" from the title. Brandmeister^talk 12:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 15:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with the above. The counterargument that has been in the past to this is that "Buddha" could be confused with "buddha" (lower case), i.e. the general concept of "buddhahood" or one of the other figures associated with it - an argument that I, personally, have never found particularly compelling. There are other buddhas, yes ... but, as the tertiary sources above attest, "Buddha" (upper case) only has one real meaning in common English. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:THE and WP:COMMONNAME. Beginning an article title with the definite article is discouraged for searching and indexing reasons. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous and lengthy discussions above. "The Buddha" is the smartest solution. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because I am tired of page moves; because the last move ended on December 3 2022 which is 8 months not a year; because I am ashamed of the time I seemingly invested in previous page moves and, in general, in talk page discussions here; because their memory is so hazy as to be of a lifetime ago; because the lead of the article remains in the same state of disrepair and disregard it was two years ago; and ultimately because Gautama Buddha, the Sage of the Sakyas, would have walked away, and did walk away, from such arguments to seek the shade of an unfrequented tree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose: The nominator quoted the second criterion at WP:THE (about capitalization in running text), but neglected to quote the first criterion, which says "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article." The suggestion is that while "buddha" could refer to anyone who has achieved buddhahood, when someone refers to "The Buddha", it is reasonable to assume they are referring to Gautama Buddha. Addressing the "upper case" part of the comment by Iskandar323, Wikipedia has no way to distinguish between an article title that starts with an uppercase letter and one that starts with an lowercase letter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, so both Buddha/buddha (upper/lower case) already direct here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. If we had a way of distinguishing between them, we might send "Buddha" to Siddhartha Gautama and "buddha" to buddhahood. It is interesting that your view seems to have changed since November. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  That it already directs here is merely fact. That no one was has bothered to open a discussion to redirect it anywhere else in the last eight months shows that no one has a strong convinction against the current arrangement. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  The first criterion of WP:THE is not much applicable here because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Otherwise Buddha would have redirected to Buddha (disambiguation) instead. Brandmeister^talk 20:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the choice of a title is more than a matter of picking the shortest name that fits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (assuming it is correctly considered a primary topic). So I disagree with the suggestion that first criterion of WP:THE is not relevant here. I just took a look at the three places linked above. I notice that both Britannica and Stanford, although they title their articles "Buddha", use the phrase "the Buddha" a lot. The cited dictionary seems simply deficient, as it fails to acknowledge that the word has other meanings – it mentions statues explicitly, but many (perhaps most) of the statues are depicting other buddhas, not that buddha. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  What matters in Britannica or Stanford is the lack of "the" in their entries rather than presence in the running prose. Currently Wikipedia appears to be in minority among major reference works that use "the" in the Buddha entry - most of them reasonably use simply "Buddha" in the entries/headlines. Brandmeister^talk 07:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  As a reminder, Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources, as linked in the talk page header, provides a fairly full gamut of tertiary sources for those inquisitive along these lines. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Britannica uses simply "Buddha", and the name already redirects here. There is the question of whether Buddha (title) should have been soft deleted, but it's clear that the person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

What "person"? Siddharta? "Buddha" is only and always a state of being, ie a title. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Both this article and Britannica refer to Siddhartha Gautama as the primary meaning of "Buddha". I think it's important to consider what a lay person would think of when hearing "Buddha" compared to a devout Buddhist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the arguments in the many earlier discussions, and precisely (per F&F & Pat) because there have been so many earlier discussions. Most Western readers understandably have an uncertain grasp of Buddhist theology, and (in fact like many Asians, even Buddhist laity) are unaware that eg many a "statue of Buddha", especially in East Asia, is not a statue of "the Buddha" but another Buddha. The current title plays a very small role in increasing awareness of the distinction. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "The Buddha" is fine and sensible, while seven discussions over the title of this page over five years is decidedly not. AristippusSer (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I feel like "The Buddha", as the page is titled right now, is a decent compromise between the other options, either a more specific name like Gautama Buddha or just "Buddha". There are reasons to dispute the inclusion of the definite article, but changing it in either direction is just going to spawn endless move requests, which is why I favor leaving the name as it stands and stop cluttering the page history with RM.

Personally speaking, I will say that I do not like the name "Buddha" by itself because of the entirely legitimate concerns about ambiguity raised in previous RMs; just to give an example, out of the thirteen traditional schools of Japanese buddhism, only four (Nichiren and the three Zen schools) recognize Śākyamuni as the primary buddha. But I am OK with "The Buddha" as a middle ground if this is how he is normally referred to in English-language sources, since it doesn't entirely equate "Buddha" with "Gautama Buddha". And if that compromise comes only at the expense of a few style rules, I say it is our best choice. Aristippus Ser (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as listed by major reference works. "A buddha" in distinction to "Buddha" is covered by the buddhahood entry. Robert Kerber (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can see the merits of both "The Buddha" and "Buddha" but I cannot support or engage in an RM every few months. If half as much effort had been put into the article as had been put into the last 5 RMs (6 counting this one) this would probably be an FA by now (and yes, I am aware of how much my own bytes added to some of those discussions). An RM proposal would have to be very persuasive to warrant changing the title or even attempting to so frequently, and opening a new RM because of a selective reading of WP:THE, which is not a novel argument in these RMs, is not persuasive in my estimation. - Aoidh (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. As in previous discussions, I will write again that this should be avoided because there are many Buddhas (see Category:Buddhas) and it is not the case that the term is used primarily for this figure in all contexts. I still believe that Buddha should redirect to Buddhahood (as well as that the article should not have been moved away from its previous title). Dekimasuよ! 09:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Depending on the outcome of this RM, someone who believes the same should probably actually launch that discussion to redirect Buddha to Buddhahood, because as long as Buddha directs here, it will continue to appear nonsensical to disambiguate the page away from its own redirect by deferring to WP:THE. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 10:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Buddha" is generic, and may be any of several (e.g., these seven). "The Buddha" denotes a unique personage, and obviously that is Siddhartha, and not any of the others. Furthermore, WP:PRECISION is policy—and that overrides WP:THE, which is merely a guideline, if it even applies here at all. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Current title does not meet either criteria at WP:THE: the definite article is not usually capitalized in running text and there is no question of separate articles for "Buddha" and "The Buddha". Srnec (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic for Buddha (which redirects here anyway, thus undermining the arguments that this Buddha is not the only Buddha; we know, so what?) and per WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:THE. The presence of "the" changes the meaning here, which is a huge deal. "The Buddha" and "Buddha" are not synonyms, and placing the article here helps clarify the matter. Side note: for religious topics, there should be a special concern for accuracy to how the religion itself presents it rather than convenience or common name outside the religion. If Buddhism says there are lots of Buddhas, that should be taken into account. SnowFire (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the comments and previous discussions. The Buddha is a particular person. 'Buddha', although correctly redirected here to pick up readers who are looking for this particular Buddha, has now been described as having many bodies and existences. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the other participants who have noted that there are other figures who have held the title of "buddha", and thus that "Buddha" would be an insufficiently WP:PRECISE title. Though my first preference would be Gautama Buddha, there was a fairly recent consensus against that title so I think it's wise not to revive that particular issue; instead, I'll support the current title of "The Buddha", which I feel is a WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE way to differentiate this particular buddha from others. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  (As a corollary, I'd also support retargeting Buddha so it redirects to Buddhahood instead of here; we can then use a hatnote to clean up any remaining navigation issues.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What are the current problems with the article, and how can we fix them?

I see some people lamenting the current state of this article in the move discussions above. I know very little about this subject so I don't know what the general academic consensus is, so I don't know what's missing or inaccurate in the current article, but I'd be happy to help out with copyediting or organization, or anything else really. Would someone mind letting me know what the current problems are with this article, or what's missing?

Thanks,

3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Replying to myself here, but on a quick scan through of the article I'm not seeing a whole lot on the Buddha's "legacy" -- how later Buddhists have interpreted him and his teachings, and the evolution of how he's portrayed in texts. (For example, Muhammad and Confucius each have a "legacy" section, while Jesus has "religious perspectives".) There seem to be a few bits sprinkled in about how, originally, the Buddha was portrayed certain ways, but maybe a separate section could be added discussing his historiography or hagiography, etc. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Two issues I'm seeing at first glance is the large gallery below the Artistic depictions section which should be trimmed per WP:NOTGALLERY and listy format in the In other media section which should be streamlined and converted into prose per MOS:EMBED. Brandmeister^talk 10:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Buddha was born in Nepal. 103.174.168.54 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: First of all, please use a "change X to Y" format for edit requests. Secondly, the "Nepal/India/South Asia" dispute has been going on ad nauseam. Please read the existing discussions in the archives and prepare an actual argument. Aristippus Ser (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Request to change the article title

Everybody in the world knows he is termed as Gautam Buddha. Yes some people do call him Siddhartha Gautam or Prince Siddhartha as that's his original name..but after being enlightened one it's Gautam Buddha where Buddha refers to the enlightened one.

There are many Buddhas. The little Buddha, the pancha Buddha and many more..by giving the title The Buddha, there will only be confusion or say less reach of the article. Please keep it the original one. Thanks! Sandhyahere (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @Sandhyahere:, please take a look at the discussion at the top of this page, where a similar move was proposed in March 2023, following on from the decision to move to The Buddha in 2022. There was almost unanimous opposition there to returning to the Gautama Buddha title, so it seems highly unlikely that a fresh move request now would be successful. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's a unanimous decision, then it's fine. Thanks :) Sandhyahere (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Checkuser note: Sandhyahere blocked as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality in intro

@Skyerise: Greetings! Regarding this revert, the article should not say that the Buddha "died in Kushinagar, attaining parinirvana" as if it were a fact, because this claim is highly disputed. It should be obvious that billions of people think there is no such thing as parinirvana. It's fine to say that Buddist tradition asserts this, which is why I kept the statement but added "reportedly". WP:CLAIM correctly advises avoiding phrases like "reportedly" when and only when they inappropriately call the factuality of the assertion into question. Is there some other way you'd prefer to neutralize this statement? -- Beland (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: Changes to the lead require consensus. Please show that other editors agree with your edit per our bold, revert, discuss cycle. Otherwise any single editor (such as myself) can insist that we maintain the status quo. Words which cast doubt are always introducing a non-neutral POV. It's up to you how to phrase it without using "claim", "reportedly", etc. You are misreading WP:CLAIM: we have to have a source to use such a word and typically use it in an attributed and cited quotation, usually in the body of the article and not the lead. Matters of belief require more delicate treatment. Whatever phrasing you use should clarify it as a matter of belief without using words which cast doubt. Currently, the whole paragraph is introduced with "According to Buddhist tradition". I personally believe that is as much "disclaimer" as we need. Skyerise (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reading it again, it appears there's nothing in the intro to indicate that the factual accuracy of the assertions made by that tradition are disputed by scholars. Those disputes are described in several sections of the article, which means the intro isn't a good and neutral summary of the body. The Buddhist perspective should certainly be presented in a way that Buddhists find fair and accurate, but it can't be the only perspective. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: Then add a summary of the disputes by scholars, but remember to keep the lead to four paragraphs. What do you propose to remove? Skyerise (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. I've already trimmed a little here and there; it'll take me a while to work my way through the entire article, as there are neutrality problems in the body as well. In the meantime, don't let me stop anyone from making suggestions or neutralizing edits. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead already states twice "According to Buddhist tradition," precisely because we hardly have accurate historical information to rely on. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

\

Per MOS:LEADCITE,

The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the verifiability policy, as quoted in MOS:LEADCITE actually says

Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.

Regarding parinirvana, to state that the Buddha reportedly attained parinirvana is off the mark; the suttas cannot be considered as eye-witness accounts. What's more, the idea that reincarnation exists is a metaphysical, supernatural assumption, beyond the realm of eyewitness-accounts (the Buddha 'reportedly' acquired insight in past lives through a suparnatural insight). And even the idea that a person could be completely liberated from desire and passion seems to belong to the realm of belief, not 'natural facts'. But/so, therefor: "according to Buddhist tradition." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I insist but the policy is very clear. The verifiability policy states,

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.

What you cited is a guideline and it talks about balancing the desire. It does not supersede the policy. There are no exceptions regarding the specific cases the policy mentions even regarding the lead, as the lead guideline itself states. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you miss the point here. According to Beland, the statement "attaining parinirvana" is not neutral, as it is a religious statement. That the Buddhist tradition adheres to the teaching of Parinirvana seems to be beyond doubt. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

According to you. I am not saying you are right or wrong in your claim about the info. But each mind is its own universe and info in Wikipedia needs to be verified by what reliable sources state, not by editors opinions. The point is that an editor challenged some info in the lead in good faith and then that info, according to the very clear aforementioned policy, should have an inline citation (if it is still applicable because some changes may have been made since you made your reply). Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• There was certainly room for improvement in the tone and style here. Just having "according to" at the beginning of a paragraph doesn't absolve the entire paragraph of needing to be written in a neutral tone. I've worked in some changes using more subtle nods, and tweaked a duplication of the "according to" framing. None is this is consensus altering stuff; just basic copyediting. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed; I've changed it so that each sentence that repeats a Buddhist tradition makes that clear, rather than implying a factual assertion. The intro still is unbalanced, but I've gotten bogged down in problems on Buddhism which I was reading for background. (I'm not sure that all Buddhist traditions actually believe all the things that are ascribed to them.) -- Beland (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Move

Add me forward or backward to the long list of people correctly trying to move this to Buddha. The Buddha only has a capitalized article when it's at the beginning of a sentence; otherwise it's the Buddha. Note the way our running text works here in this article versus, eg, The New York Times or The Rock. WP:THE is crystalline clear on the subject, it's entirely unnecessary here, and every "oppose" in the previous discussion is so obviously (well meaning but) mistaken that an admin should just step in and get them to knock it off.

There are many other lower-case buddhas. As a single upper-case Buddha and even as a lower-case one, this guy is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the others don't matter at all in the discussion. It's not even a case of WP:NATDAB because Buddha redirects straight here anyway.

It's only a question of if anyone calls this guy The Buddha instead of the Buddha. In reliable English sources and in English publications with actual English-speaking editors, no, absolutely no one does.

(Note that this is different from how you treat the headword at the Wiktionary entry. That's also where some of the confusion is coming from on the other side, again needing an admin to just kindly remind them, nah, it's different here. Sun and Moon being where they are doesn't mean that you don't use the article with them in other contexts.) — LlywelynII 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - The Buddha only has a capitalized article when it's at the beginning of a sentence I don't think anyone is disputing that, the reason this article is called "The Buddha" and not "the Buddha" is simply Wikipedia:Article titles#Use sentence case, so the statement about sources using "the Buddha" rather than "The Buddha" doesn't seem to be a refutation of the current title. - Aoidh (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Agree move Temerarius (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per last time. Capitalization of "the" isn't at all the issue, in fact it's a complete red herring. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - every "oppose" in the previous discussion is so obviously (well meaning but) mistaken that an admin should just step in and get them to knock it off - you surely know how not to gain consensus. But you're right that WP:THE is "crystalline clear":

Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met:

1. If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article.

The Buddha refers to Shakyamuni Buddha (or Gautama Buddha, or whatever); Buddha in general refers to someone who has acquired full Buddhahood, and also to the Buddhas preceding Shakyamuni Buddha. So no, it's not "entirely unnecessary here," on the contrary, which makes your wish for admin-intervention even mor appalling. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Biased/Controversial take on Hindu Synthesis

This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500[393]–200[394] BCE and c. 300 CE,[393] under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism.[395] In response to the success of Buddhism, Gautama also came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu

• Apparently, the paragraph begins with a "this," a pronoun. Suggests you it was made by some immature who even lacks common knowledge of English language. • Then comes an uncalled term under the pressure of success of Buddhism even though I tried to change it to "following the success of Buddhism." • The comes another mention of "in response to the success of Buddhism;" seems like redundancy and bad grammar.

But, when I changed it into more appropriate language, I was called a "disruptor" and "pov edit warrior." I am letting the bullying slide but someone change the phrasing on this one. It's very unprofessional. Anant-morgan (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks like "some immature who even lacks common knowledge of English language," and stop your pov-pushing. You changed

This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500–200 BCE and c. 300 CE, under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism. In response to the success of Buddhism, Gautama also came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu.

into

This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500–200 BCE and c. 300 CE, following the rise of Buddhism. Soon Gautama came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu.

References

• This Hindu-synthesis did not simply follow after the rise of Buddhism, it emerged under the pressure of the popularity of, and support for, Buddhism; it was a response to this popularity, which you're trying to hide.
• Idem, the Buddha came to be regarded as an avatar of Vishnu in response to this popularity; there is a causal relation between this support for Buddhism, the pressure it put on Hinduism, and the incorporation of the Buddha into Hinduism. You're concealing this relation.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It's my take against the writing that has been here for a longer time; not against its editor. PS do not shift the topic to elsewhere and read what I edited and how it was before and how little sense it made (and I'm not calling you 'senseless' just so we're cleark). Also, stop personal attacks against me by referring to me as 'another one' and 'pov warrior.' Anant-morgan (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not concealing amyth. I'm not even Hindu. Terms like 'under pressure' are suggesting as if it's a high school situation of stealing boyfriends. This language is starighup antagonizing Hinduism by saying it stole something. The references are all estimates and different point-of-views (I know how much you hate povs). You can't write stuff in that tone on a neutral website; at least not without adding 'allegedly.'

Also, now my official pov: Hinduism adapted it because they thought it was divine, happened in India, so it must be an Avatar of Vishnu. It seriously didn't need to feel any pressure from comparatively minor religions (Jainism doesn't even have anything to do with it). Hinduism wasn't particularly threatened by Buddhism (it is now though); it always saw Buddhism as its own subset. Anant-morgan (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Modest suggestion: follow WP:RS, instead of WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your personal pov isn't enough to change what it says, especially if the cited reliable sources disagree with what you think it should say. Which they do, to be clear. XeCyranium (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry dude but I already won my case a month ago the bad grammar has been fixed. Look here what your little brains failed to see in light of cancelling me, insulting me, calling me 'another one of those destructive edit warrior'

The adoption of the Buddha as an incarnation began at approximately the same time as Hinduism began to predominate and Buddhism to decline in India, the co-option into a list of avatars seen to be an aspect of Hindu efforts to decisively weaken Buddhist power and appeal in India.

As opposed to whatever crap this was: This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500[393]–200[394] BCE and c. 300 CE,[393] under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism.[395] In response to the success of Buddhism, Gautama also came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu.

Was that so hard for you?

But you keep carrying on targeting people instead of seeing a platform like Wikipedia has such an immature language on The BUDDHA's page.

Also, I made edits yesterday, why am I blocked now for 2 years, right after your late response here? Did you do something impulsive again? Complained me or something? Better make it right then. Anant-morgan (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, however bizarrely worded they may be. I'm assuming you're not blocked given you posted this comment, unless you're saying an alternate account of yours was blocked and you are using this account to evade said block. XeCyranium (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you just edited out one of your own personal attacks which claimed that the text I edited was still there.

Why is that? Were you seriously gloating on bad grammar and phrasing??? Lol. Anant-morgan (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't this other source say the same thing? "Co-opted" to "weaken Buddhist power"? It suggest that Gautama was absorbed as part of a political calculus by the clergy. If anything it's stronger. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm only discussing grammar here. I'm well aware of facts; I even added Pushyamitra Shunga as the culprit who caused this decline but that change was reverted to.

Don't know anymore what these elite Wikipedia editors think of themselves or want? It's like they'll reject any improvement until their little brains can't themselves come up with it a decade later. Anant-morgan (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Origin of Name Josaphat (The Buddha in Christianity)

Though Josaphat may be a character inspired by Buddha, I think it would be wrong to derive Josaphat from Bodhisattva. I have already studied about this name in the Septuagint (Josaphat happens to be a name of one of the kings of Israel), and I believe it is correct to say it derived from Yeho-shafat, clearly meaning "Yah(weh) has Judged".

Pax. 49.205.211.162 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the sources for your statement, such as article, or book and Page number. I think it is mentioned that some sources consider Josaphat may be a character inspired by Buddha. A definite claim is not being made here. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

parinirvana translation

Parinirvana is a complex concept in Buddhism. In the first paragraph, it has been translated as "Complete extinction", without sufficient sources to support such translation.

I note that 1 source, The Buddha: A Beginner's guide by John Strong, which is more like "Buddhism for Dummies" translates parinirvana as "Complete extinction"

But, more respected sources, such as Gethin, Rupert (1998), Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press

mentions parinirvana as "physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur."

"Modern Buddhist usage tends to restrict 'nirvāṇa' to the awakening experience and reserve 'parinirvāṇa' for the death experience."

Guang Xing, The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 89

notes the Mahayanists of the Nirvana Sutra understand the "mahaparinirvana to be the liberated Self of the eternal Buddha"

"One of the main themes of the MMPS [Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra] is that the Buddha is eternal ... The Mahayanists assert the eternity of the Buddha in two ways in the MMPS. They state that the Buddha is the dharmakaya, and hence eternal. Next, they reinterpret the liberation of the Buddha as mahaparinirvana possessing four attributes: eternity, happiness, self and purity.

Only in Mahaparinirvana is this True Self held to be fully discernible and accessible"

Further, Sager Qu in his book, Lord Buddha: The Universal Emperor by Sager Qu

translates parinirvana as "the final deathless state"

Based on these sources, better translation will be ""final liberation" or "final liberation from being" or "the final deathless state"

RogerYg (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on the sources, such as Guang Xing, Gethin, and Paul Williams, the more appropriate & brief translation from the sources is "eternal liberation"

Guang Xing, ''The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya'', RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 89</ref> "They state that the Buddha is the ''dharmakaya'', and hence eternal. Next, they reinterpret the liberation of the Buddha as ''mahaparinirvana'' possessing four attributes: eternity, happiness, self and purity."

RogerYg (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

With more emphasis on widely accepted Gethin source, more appropriate is "final liberation", instead of "eternal liberation", eternal concept is primarily from some Mahayana sources RogerYg (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think tou put too much emphais on one specific Mahayana understanding. This edit unclear; it added:

Parinirvana is widely considered a state free from the cycle of re-birth when there will be no new being or person; and instead of being reborn, the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur. According to some scholars of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Buddha taught that parinirvāṇa is the realm of "Eternal bliss". Scholar Guang Xing notes that Mahayanists understand the mahaparinirvana to be the liberated Self of the eternal Buddha.

One of the main themes of the [Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra] is that the Buddha is the Dharmakaya, and hence Eternal. and the final liberation of the Buddha, the mahaparinirvana has four attributes: Eternity, Happiness, Self and Purity.

References

• Gethin (1998)(The Foundations of Buddhism) p.76 does not state something akin to "widely considered," nor does he use the term "state" ("state" is an eternalist stance...). Gethin also doesn't state that "the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena" are reborn. What Gethin doe state is that "Instead of being reborn, the person 'parinirvana-s', meaning in this context that the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur"; the aggregates don't occur again.
• Eternal bliss: Gethin (1989) p.98-99 does not mention the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra.
• Guang Xing does not refer to "mahayanists," but to the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

Note that the section where you added this is about the Buddha's (sipoosed) biography, not Mahayana Buddhism or the essentialist tendencies of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, on which Gethin has very things to say. "Eternal liberation" is certainly not an appropriate translation, as it is specific for only one text, not for all of Mahayana Buddhism, even less for Theravada. "Final liberation" is better. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, lets keep final liberation, instead of final nirvana, to avoid being tautological with nirvana, and for better WP:Readability.

Further, the additions were in the parinirvana section, and we can debate later, whether they are better placed in the Mahayana section. Also, regarding "widely considered," , I meant in general Gethin (1998)(The Foundations of Buddhism) is a widely accepted source, while I agree Guang Xing is a specific Mahayana interpretation. RogerYg (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Since no one has provided any objection or arguments against final liberation, and the changing final nirvana, is need to avoid being tautological with nirvana, and for better WP:Readability, therefore this change is made. RogerYg (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Buswell & Lopez (2014), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, p.1544:

"s su my a ngan las ’das pa; C. banniepan; J. hatsunehan; K. pany ŏlban 般涅槃). In Sanskrit, “final nirvāṇa” or “complete nirvāṇa,” the final passage into NIRVĀṆA upon the death of a buddha or an ARHAT.

• Bikkhu Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, p.51:

I translate parinibbana as "final Nibbana," since the noun form usually means the passing away of an arahant (or the Buddha), final release from comnditioned existence; sometimes, however, its meaning is ambigious, as in the statement "the Dhamma [is] taught by the Blessed One for the sake of final Nibbana without clinging (anupadaparinibbanattham) (IV 48, 78), which can mean either Nibbana during full life or the full cessation of existence.

And.... K. R. Norman (2005), A philological approach to Buddhism, p.14, explains that, while the term is used in connection to the Buddha's death, it is also used for living arahats, and therefor cannot mean "final nirvana." What it should be, them does he not explain, unfortunately... Note that Gethin also explains that parinirvana is kind of a verb: " the person 'parinirvāṇa-s'." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I agree "final release from conditioned existence" is a reasonably good translation, supported by relevant sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead Sentence needs to focus on "Notable" aspects

Current lead: Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.

Notable: I think The Buddha is not primarily notable or known for being a wandering ascetic, but rather for being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism as per majority of WP:RS reliable sources

Giving such high priority to "wandering ascetic" seems to violates several WP guidelines

"Wandering ascetic" can be mentioned in relevant subsequent sentences.

Therefore, the lead voice needs to updated to:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

See similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

RogerYg (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if you understand of those policies. Regarding WP:WEIGHT, is there a majority of researchers who doubt that he was a sramana? What's the best-known story about the Buddha? His ascetic life, that is, a wanderer. And: the Buddha was a sramana; that's relevant, as is his teachings did not exist in a vacuum, but are related to the broader sramanic tradition. Furthermore, he encouraged people to follow his example, and also become sramanas.

How this violates WP:NOTABILITY is a mystery to me; maybe you should actually read that policy. Same for WP:RS; are there sources which dispute the fact that he was a sramana? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! for kind response.

I understand that I got confused between Notable and Notability, and I would like to withdraw the ''WP:Notability argument, as Notability is more about whether a topic is important enough to be published on Wiki.

My main argument is regarding Wikipedia policy for First Sentence: "what is notable" for the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?

You seem to have very good knowledge of Buddhism, and I respect that. I never disputed that Buddha was a wanderig ascetic. Of course, he was . But is "wandering ascetic" the top notable aspect about Buddha.

The answer to that is probably no. The most notable aspects are that he was a spiritual/religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism.

Though, I think we need to add philosopher to it

The next sentence can be about the wandering ascetic aspect. RogerYg (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That he was a sramana, a 'wandering ascetic', is one of the most notable aspects of the Buddha; 'religious homelessness' is the essence of his vocation. "Philosopher" is tricky, and has been debated many times before. You're right that "wandering ascetic" was repeated; I've edited the lead diff to change this. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear Joshua Jonathan,

Many scholars have been debating on "what is the most notable aspect" of Buddha for thousands of years, and I don't think we have sources to support that there is a clear winner and "wandering ascetic" was accepted as the most notable aspect.

Please think of a many common Wikipedia users, who come to Wikipedia page to get a very brief information on Buddha, and are likely to get confused with "wandering ascetic" aspect and lose focus on Buddha being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism.

Also, there is problem is Translation. I have myself studied Pali language, and find this translation very problemetic especially in the opening sentence. Many scholars will not agree that "wandering ascetic" is that correct translation for Śramaṇa spritual tradition /path.

Also, "Wandering" in English has a tone and sense of being lost, which is clearly not the meaning of "Sramana", where the focus is on spiritual goals and spiritual seeking; hence, "wandering" does not make for a good translation.

A better translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"

Several scholars also translate Śramaṇa as a "spiritual seeker"

So, I think good options are:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual seeker, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

OR

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual ascetic, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

RogerYg (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

RogerYg, your entire argument is a non-starter; please read up on basic elements of Wikipedia articles such as Notability and Verifiability, two very different concepts. For one thing, WP:Notability is about topics and not about articles; that is number one. In particular, notability is a threshold which describes whether a given topic deserves to have an article or not. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, Notability has absolutely zero to do with the content or development of the article. Claiming that any given part of the article, whether the lead, or the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE or anything else has to be "notable" is just nonsense. In fact, the Notability policy specifically rejecs this notion in the Nutshell box at the top:

"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles."

and then lower down there is a whole section entitled, § Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists that underlines it again in more detail. So, you can just forget about the idea that notability has anything to do with the lead sentence—it does not.

Secondly, what goes into the lead sentence is described by MOS:LEADSENTENCE (guideline), which starts out:

"The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about what are the most salient points to include in the lead sentence, but stating that the Buddha was a "wandering ascetic" cannot be denied, and in my view is a defining characteristic of the Buddha and his life. You may reasonably argue against it, but appealing to Notability is irrelevant. Also, the idea that "wandering" has connotations of "lost" are idiosyncratic imho; that is not what it means to most native speakers (it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost"). In conclusion, the proposal inherent in your section title "Lead Sentence needs to focus on 'Notable' aspects" is contrary both to Wikipedia's policy on WP:Notability, as well as Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE, leaving your proposal without a leg to stand on. Mathglot (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot for your insightful views. We had already discussed the confusion about Notable and Notability, and we are no longer discussing Notability, but about the Notable aspects as per Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE. We need discuss in good failth as per WP:TALK, rather than giving one-sided conclusions. Thanks again for the discussion.

My main argument is regarding Wikipedia policy for First Sentence: "what is notable" for the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section_TT_first_sentence_content

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?

I never disputed that Buddha was a wanderig ascetic. Of course, he was . But is "wandering ascetic" the top notable aspect about Buddha?

As Wiki editors, we need to understand that Wikipedia has broad readership, including both native and non-native English speakers, who are likely to get confused with "wandering ascetic" aspect and lose focus on Buddha being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism.

Also, there is problem is Translation. I have myself studied Pali language, and find this translation very problemetic especially in the opening sentence. Many scholars will not agree that "wandering ascetic" is that correct translation for Śramaṇa spritual tradition /path.

As mentioned by Mathglot "wandering" to most native speakers "(it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost")."

As anyone, with some knowledge of "Sramana" knows, it is not at all : "aimless", or "no fixed goal"; rather, it's about a spritual pratice focussed and aiming towards spritual goals.

A better broader translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"

Several scholars also translate Śramaṇa as a "spiritual seeker"

So again , I think better options are:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual seeker, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

OR

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a spiritual ascetic, religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

RogerYg (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your claim about two questions to be answered at the top:

The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"

'Yes' to the first, and a big 'No' to the second. The article is presumed notable due to the fact that an article exists. (If you disagree that it is notable, the proper venue is WP:AFD, not the lead sentence of the article.) I presume you have not the slightest doubt about the notability of the topic, but I'm here to tell you that the lead sentence is not about demonstrating notability. I realize that you are still relatively new here; please spend some time with the policies and guidelines about these key issues. As for your other points about "Sramana" and everything else, feel free to take that up as to whether it belongs or doesn't in the lead sentence, but please just stop referring to Notability here, which plays absolutely no role in it. I find that I am repeating myself, and that means it's time for me to bow out. I'll leave you to the wonderful folks here, who may be better suited than I to deal with your other arguments about content of the lead.

(P.S. Your indentation is all over the place, which makes it hard to see who or what you are responding to, and which part is your message and which may be someone else. Please see WP:THREAD and follow the recommendations there.) Best, Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll concede that in some marginal cases the lede might be used to help address issues of relative notability. That's not an issue here, where it's clear the subject meets many criteria for inclusion. I agree with the assertions of User:Mathglot and urge User:RogerYg to find some other aspect of this article which needs improvement. I'll also agree with Mathglot that the non-standard indentation makes points harder to follow in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Joshua Jonathan: All of this said, I'm not sure your earlier tweak was especially beneficial. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a few duplicate terms. The first paragraph is something of a microcosm of the rest of the lead. By contrast, tweaking the terms purely to eliminate duplication in the diction can yield pitfalls. I'm not convinced by "seeker" as a term that necessarily conveys much meaning to the lay reader. Also, "homeless" is not a word that to me conveys any of the right connotations. Homelessness is usually non-elective and quite involuntary, which is quite the opposite meaning of a vocational ascetic. I'm not even sure if it's accurate: is it fact that the former prince had no palace to go back to and call home had he so wished? Eschewing a home is not the same as not having one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with Iskandar323 regarding "homeless" which was a very poor mistranslation. Thanks Joshua Jonathan: for reverting that.

  Meanwhile, we need to discuss several more mistranslations and duplicates, including "wandering ascetic" in the lede.

  As mentioned by Mathglot "wandering" to most native speakers : "it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", which is not the correct tone & translation for Śramaṇa

  RogerYg (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Since "wandering ascetic" is mentioned in the second sentence, there is no need to duplicate it in the first sentence, especially as we have noted issues about mistranslation and notable aspects.

  Therefore, based on the points discussed, a good option for the lede can be:

  Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and the founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE. RogerYg (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  While you or anyone is welcome to propose improvements to the WP:LEADSENTENCE as well as to any part of the article, please be aware of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and of the fact that it is a common newbie conceit to head straight for the lead sentence to propose changes, and to ignore pretty much everything else. The article has approximately 12,000 words, and the WP:LEADSENTENCE has eleven words, so, 1/1000th of the article. Given the number of words expended already in this discussion section, that seems highly disproportionate to me.

  Secondly: you have mentioned "the correct tone & translation for Śramaṇa", but this is English Wikipedia, and it is not our role to discuss what is the "correct" translation for this or that term from another language. Rather, we rely on what the reliable sources *in English* have to say about this point, and we do not substitute our own opinions about this for what the sources say. If you wish to discuss the meaning of Śramaṇa, please confine your comments to what reliable English sources have to say about this; it is not up for debate among Wikipedia editors to opine about this based on private study or knowledge. If you wish to expound on the topic based on your own knowledge about the topic, please write it up and publish it at Medium or Substack, but not at Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Mathglot for the informative comments. I agree with most of your suggestions such as we should discuss the meaning of Śramaṇa, mainly from reliable English sources and editors should avoid "our own opinions about this ".

  RogerYg (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to propose a slight modification of the lead actually, and add the name "Śākyamuni." I believe it's fair to include this title, as it is a very common name for Gautama Buddha, used primarily in Mahayana tradition and by Buddhists of East Asian heritage. So the lead would read something like:

  Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as Śākyamuni or most commonly as simply the Buddha ('the awakened'), ...

  I'm open to suggestions on how to better word this or if it should be placed in another section of the lead. Invokingvajras (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization in Lead

In the third paragraph, "his teachings" should be changed to "His teachings" because "His" is the first word in the sentence. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

South Asia

@Divinemomentever: South Asia is a neutral term. This has been discussed several times before; dropping sources, without further discussion, or simply reverting, won't help here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Joshua, thanks for your elaboration. However, I don’t get it when you say south Asian is a neutral term. It is not. Indian subcontinent, which refers to a geographical feature, is the neutral term. For example, South Asia includes Afghanistan. Do you suggest that really Afghanistan was related to the birth place of the Buddha? Besides, South Asia is definitely a political term, coined recently, just look at the history of such term.

it is like we call European civilization a “west Asian” civilization since west Asia is a more neutral term than Europe which is technically a peninsula of Asia.

Are you suggesting that there was the so called “South Asia” at the time of lord Buddha? Don’t you think it contradicts all the documents and archeological evidence that India (Indus, Hindus, Bharat) was written in documents regarding the land of lord Buddha?

How can you claim that Chinese monks referred to the Buddha’s place of birth as “South Asia”?

With due respect, whether you intentionally want to use the so-called South Asia to demote Indian civilization, or you just do not know how politically charged such the former is. Divinemomentever (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVOCACY. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed: 2016–17 California textbook controversy over South Asian topics#India and South Asia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just one example of previous discussions here. An overview here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

[1] Neutral term: South Asia#Name:

According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, the Indian subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance". Indologist Ronald B. Inden argues that the usage of the term South Asia is becoming more widespread since it clearly distinguishes the region from East Asia. While South Asia, a more accurate term that reflects the region's contemporary political demarcations, is replacing the Indian subcontinent, a term closely linked to the region's colonial heritage, as a cover term, the latter is still widely used in typological studies.

References

[2] Afghanistan: is Tamil Nadu related to the birth place of the Buddha? Why not call it Nepal, or "lived in the Ganges plain"?

[3] “west Asian” civilization: go ahead, propose a name change for "Europe" and all related articles;

Ancient kingdoms and cities of India during the time of the Buddha (c. 500 BCE)

[4] “South Asia” at the time of lord Buddha: it seems to me that, during his lifetime, wandered the kingdoms of Kosala, Kasi and Maghada, among others; what does Tamil Nadu have to do with it?

[5] Chinese monks: the Chinese called India Tianzhu, "five Indias," referring to five regions;

[6] "demote Indian civilization" - ah, there we are;

[7] "politically charged such the former [South Asia] is: obviously you're ignorant of the political bagage of the term "India."

I hope you're done now with your rhetorics, and come with some real arguments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

well, let's call Europe from now on "Western Eurasian".

I checked this guy, Jazzmand, he is blocked now. Apparently he had a Hinduphobic and Anti-Indian agenda. From when, India is a name given by British!? the last time I checked, it comes from the Sindhu, i.e. river. Clearly, demoting Ancient India by replacing it with non-historical invented term, South Asia, is due to anti-India and Hinduphobia. Aparently, Indians are the new Jews. Such non-historical name changing smacks of racism and hinduphobic as well as anti-semiticism. Divinemomentever (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, India is a bastardised form of Sindhu believed to derive from the classical Greek period, when it was used in reference to the Indus valley. The extension of the name to the whole subcontinent is ofc an ironic misnomer and one that would also be anachronistic in the context of the Buddha – just as much as as any modern geographic nomenclature, so that is a highly moot point. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Tianzhu, "five India", wrong! It means five rivers as India means Sindhu or river! Man, the British did not even existed when India was India! I don't get how Chinese and antisemitic propaganda try to hijack the term India and you are supporting such baseless claim! Let's call China as the middle kingdom since China is also an Indian name, from Chin in Sanskrit! You are promoting Hinduphobia. Divinemomentever (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Shall we get back on topic? You gave one good argument: what term do WP:RS use? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Random inferences about propagandistic influences are not advancing your point. They're also bizarre. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Tianzhu (天竺) itself has nothing to do with "five", which arises only in Wutianzhu (五天竺).

zhu (竺) here is almost certainly a transliteration of *dhu from Sanskrit, so while in a certain sense it could be construed as having connotions towards "river" when back-translated, in any reasonable sense it's a toponym when used in this and related terms (竺國 etc). I have no reason to doubt the claim in Cheung 2014 p.179 n.284 that the 五 (five) here refers to "regions" rather than "rivers". Folly Mox (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Divinemomentever: may I remind you that you still haven't gained consensus for "Indian subcontinent"? It seems that you don't understand how Wikipedia works... Calling my reverts "disruptive" is not helpfull either. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear friend Joshua, I looked at WP: consensus and there is consensus on usage of both South Asia and Indian subcontinent, both featuring geographical terms. I suggest you to review the consensus to find hundreds of such examples. Just search Sikhism in WP to see it. Divinemomentever (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No there isn't. The term "South Asia" has been used at this page for more than two years; two editors are opposing now "Indian subcontinent." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, South Asia is the WP:NPOV socio-cultural-political-historical term. "Indian subcontinent" should not be used outside of strictly geophysical contexts. Thus in Kashmir we do use "Indian subcontinent." But in Indus Valley Civilisation, the Maurya Empire, or the Mughal Empire, we do not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, "Indian subcontinent" references what became "India" during the British Raj. That geography was created by the British by conquests and subsidiary alliances, mapped by the British in Great Trigonometric Survey, and given sovereignty by the British as a result of treaties and representation in international venues, such as the Olympics or the League of Nations. The "India" of the "Indian subcontinent" is no longer around. There is no reason to create linguistic ambiguity by letting people interpret it to be about the Republic of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)