Talk:The Buddha

Requested move 31 March 2023

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]

  • Strong oppose - I'm not sure what the rationale for the RM is. The RM proposal does not say why the current title is problematic, nor why the proposed title should be used, nor is any evidence provided to show why the article should be renamed. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it is cited, yet the RM is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. As was made clear in the previous RM that changed the title to its current one, English-language sources do not support "Gautama Buddha" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and this subject is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Apples-to-oranges comparisons to articles like Dwayne Johnson (who perhaps was as one point more commonly known by The Rock but his career as an actor has overshadowed that) are not a sufficient rationale to try to overturn a recent move simply because the proposer "fail[s] to understand". Consensus can certainly change, but we just had this discussion and it's only been a few months. The nom brings forward no novel argument that would warrant reopening this topic so soon. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every other Buddha's in this portal has similar naming structure, so I don't see how this needs further reasoning how or why English-language sources do not support this. Eg- Kassapa Buddha, Sumedha Buddha, etc.
    Also, this is relating to a cultural and religion topic, why you are looking for English-Language sources only, is quite ignorant and probably very offensive to people who are not primarily English speakers, hence why, I have read many people citing other Wikipedia language pages for Gautama Buddha as the preferred naming structure.
    I compared with a wrestler and fictional superhero as that's what this naming structure has brought Siddhartha Gautama down to. You are treating him like fictional character, a superhero or a person trying to go by the stage name for a profession. He is a person yet his article is referring to him by the title that was most associated to him. Let's not forget this article is related to Siddhartha Gautama. Please give example's where title has only been used to refer to a person.
    A few examples for my reasoning.
    1) Mahatma Gandhi - Mahatma is a title not a name yet the title is mostly if not only used for Mohandas Gandhi.
    2) Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - First of all, Queen Elizabeth is the most popular queen at this age and according to the logic of why The Buddha should be used, perhaps Elizabeth II should have her page renamed to The Queen. Anyway, to avoid confusion with Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth is most popularly known as The Queen Mother and her page reflects that. But somehow, here we are trying to create confusion than trying to educate people and remove confusion.
    3) Mansa Musa - Same reasoning as above.
    4) Jesus - No one could say, if Christ is more popularly known or Jesus. And, while Christ is a title that is only used to refer to one person, it is not the name for the page. In fact, the title has a separate page - Christ (title).
    It is quite ignorant and blasphemous to make light of the subject. People need to know about the person in this article not the title. According to me, this naming structure is encouraging a mindset that this is a fictional or mythical person. I could then understand why some people would be against the idea for change to create confusion and spread misinformation or rather the lack of proper information. The core principle of Buddhism is that every person can and probably someday will achieve the state of Buddha, so referring to Siddhartha Gautama as The Buddha is quite against the idea of what Buddhism is about or what he taught. Which from a religion standpoint I presume is very offensive to non-English speakers, some might see this as a win but I consider this as a disrespect to the person behind the title and mystifying title itself. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: What Aoidh said. Overall, a somewhat baffling RM. The message seems to be "Siddhartha Gautama" would be best, which is consistent with the Dwayne Johnson material further up, but failing that, since it was already tried last year, a default back to the previous poorly supported page title would suffice ... hang on, what? Setting aside the general comparisons with fictional super heroes and pro-wrestlers, umm, sourcing? "Gautama Buddha" went the way of the dodos because it was a total flunk of a common name. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly refer to the above comment for any confusion you have. Also, Gautama Buddha is quite a common name in non-English speaking communities or people who actually follow Buddhism. It gives respect to both the person and also his status as a Buddha. Hence, the case with Mahatma Gandhi. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per the above, and previous discussions. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move and snowclose. This request is nonsensical. O.N.R. (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE per other editors comments. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's not inherently wrong or bad, but it makes infinitely more sense to me to have this page at Buddha, following Britannica. — kashmīrī TALK 19:47, 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

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

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]
  • Checkuser note: Sandhyahere blocked as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyobons mots 21:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[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

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).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha&oldid=1215793238"