body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Requested move 31 March 2023[edit]

WP:SNOW, this was already subject to a move request only six months ago. Talk:The Buddha/Archive 15#Requested move 5 October 2022, which this move req is an attempt to revert. There is no need to relitigate this again so soon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The Buddha → Gautama Buddha – I have gone through the previous two RM requests but I fail to understand how we still arrived at this conclusion. Although. Dwayne Johnson is more popularly known as The Rock, we can clearly see how the Wikipedia page is titled. And while I'm not advocating for the name change to Buddha, someone correctly said in a previous RM that there are many moons but the wiki page refers to our Moon. While, a case can be made that Captain America (please note, the lack of The) is a title for many characters but the page references to the character that is primarily known by that name (Steve Rogers), another case can also be made that Ant-Man is a title and many of the characters using that title have their own separate pages. So, what I'm trying to say is while Buddha would make sense, Siddhartha Gautama would make even more sense but The Buddha makes the least amount of sense. Since, Siddhartha Gautama was previously denied during a RM and the title of the article was not changed for over 15 years, I would suggest a RM back to Gautama Buddha. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024[edit]

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

 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)[reply]

Request to change the article title[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Neutrality in intro[edit]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

\

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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[a] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Biased/Controversial take on Hindu Synthesis[edit]

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)[reply]

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[1]–200[2] BCE and c. 300 CE,[1] under the pressure of the success of Buddhism and Jainism.[3] In response to the success of Buddhism, Gautama also came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu.[4][5][6]

into

This Hindu synthesis emerged after the lifetime of the Buddha, between 500[1]–200[2] BCE and c. 300 CE,[1] following the rise of Buddhism.[3] Soon Gautama came to be regarded as the 9th avatar of Vishnu.[4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Hiltebeitel 2013, p. 12.
  2. ^ a b Larson 1995.
  3. ^ a b Vijay Nath 2001, p. 21.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference google260 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Gopal (1990), p. 73.
  6. ^ a b Doniger (1993), p. 243.
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Move[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).

Categories