This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
This edit, edit-summary reword there is nothing called lay life when all life is lay within a protective bubbl
changed
The Buddha was born into an aristocratic family in the Shakya clan, but renounced lay life.
into
The Buddha was born to wealthy parents and raised in a manner so sheltered as to be unaware of inequity and suffering around him. In his late twenties, when he is able to break away from the protective shield, traditionally recounted in the Buddhist tradition, in four allegorical vignettes, he abandons his family to seek the life of a wandering hermit.
I can't make sense of all life is lay within a protective bubbl
, but "renounced lay life" is perfectly clear and concise summary.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
09:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Translations use the term "household life"; see Householder (Buddhism):
In English translations of Buddhist texts, householder denotes a variety of terms. Most broadly, it refers to any layperson, and most narrowly, to a wealthy and prestigious familial patriarch.[1] In contemporary Buddhist communities, householder is often used synonymously with laity, or non-monastics.
The Buddhist notion of householder is often contrasted with that of wandering ascetics (Pali: Pāḷi: samaṇa; Sanskrit: śramaṇa) and monastics (bhikkhu and bhikkhuni), who would not live (for extended periods) in a normal house and who would pursue freedom from attachments to houses and families.
Pabbaja Sutta: The Going Forth:
"Household life is crowded, a realm of dust, while going forth is the open air." Seeing this, he went forth.
So, I'd recommand "household life." Regarding renunciation, see Great Renunciation, also called "Great departure." "Departure" could be a usefull synonym for "renouncement." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The justification for recognition as religious professional and the criteria for a laynun to qualify as one are outlined in the six articles of the aforementioned two-page document issued by the XBA in June 2012. Article 1 states the justification for recognizing laynuns as religious professionals. Ascetic and pious women (commonly called caigu) are a unique phenomenon of a group of women who renounce laylife to live in temples [halls], are single, vegetarian, and wear distinctive laynun clothing ... This article justifies the recognition of laynuns as religious professionals by the criterion of "leaving the family" (chujia 出家), a term in Buddhism that represents clerics and distinguishes them from devotees and laypersons by the criterion of having renounced lay life—leaving their family. Therefore, Article 1 establishes the equivalency of laynuns and clerics on the basis that they have both renounced lay life.Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I prefer not to make it too long; the lead summarizes, the body goes into the details. NB: you wrote diff:
The Buddha was born to wealthy parents and raised in a manner so sheltered as to be unaware of inequity and suffering around him. In his late twenties, when he is able to break away from the protective shield, traditionally recounted in the Buddhist tradition, in four allegorical vignettes, he abandons his family to seek the life of a wandering hermit.
From this we could take "unaware of inequity and suffering around him" and copy-edit it into "he became aware of the inequity and suffering around him." This already implies he was not aware of this at first, but could be expanded. It would then become
According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha was born in Lumbini in what is now Nepal, into an aristocratic [royal] family of the Shakya clan. [Raised in a sheltered way,] he became aware of the inequity and suffering around him as a young adult, and abandoned his family [in his twenties] to seek the life of a wandering hermit.
("Royal to be discussed elsewhere, not here). NB: "hermit" is not the best choice of words; it may be associated with Pratyekabuddhayāna. "Ascetic" would be more to the point. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The Buddha was born in Lumbini in what is now Nepal to highborn parents of the Shakya clan. Raised in a highly sheltered way, he was shocked as a young adult by the awareness of inequity and suffering around him, and eventually abandoned his family to seek answers as a wandering ascetic.Highborn == of noble birth. There is some mild repetition born and highborn, but it is within the tolerance of language. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I know. "Buddhist tradition" refers to the popular understanding, the hagiographies of his life. Maybe change
he attained a profound insight into rebirth, suffering, and how they can be overcome,
into
he attained a profound insight how rebirth and suffering can be overcome,
? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Buddha’s quest for enlightenment occurs in the ARIYAPARIYESANĀSUTTA. It is noteworthy that many of the most familiar events in the Buddha’s life are absent in some of the early accounts: the miraculous conception and birth; the death of his mother, Queen MĀYĀ; his sheltered y outh; the four chariot rides outside the palace where he beholds the four portents (CATURNIMITTA); his departure from the palace; and his abandonment of his wife, YAŚODHARĀ, and his newborn son, RĀHULA. Those stories appear much later, in works like AŚVAGHOṢA’s beloved verse narrative, the BUDDHACARITA, from the second century CE; the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school’s third- or fourth-century CE LALITAVISTARA; and the NIDĀNAKATHĀ, the first biography of the Buddha in Pāli, attributed to BUDDHAGHOSA in the fifth century CE, some eight centuries after the Buddha’s passing.
Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. [...] Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand.
all the events mentioned in the account revolve around the issue of the Deathless: the discovery of the Deathless, the teaching of the Deathless, and the Buddha's success in helping others to attain the Deathless.
According to Steven Collins, a synonym widely used for nirvana in early texts is "deathless" or "deathfree" (Pali: amata, sanskrit: amrta) and refers to a condition "where there is no death, because there is also no birth, no coming into existence, nothing made by conditioning, and therefore no time."
This
edit request to
Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "In later senturies" to "In later centuries" Hypnag0gia ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Community,
The article on Gautama Buddha requires, as is displayed on the panel, a rework in terms of what has been listed as "prose." Unfortunately, whenever any user tries to add any information, a group of self-appointed hegemons immediately revert the edits under the pretense of "LEAD" or "UNDUE", etc.
95% of the last 100 edits (literally - see revision history) are made by the same 2-3 individuals, who seem to have taken it upon themselves to revert to whichever version they worked on last. This is not how Wikipedia works, it is meant to be contributed by everyone who are interested. Instead of reverting like bots, improve on the work of new contributors.
Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordzenberg ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was no country called ancient India in the past, so don't keep the biased information that is shame to WIKI validity. You are indirectly helping to be the part of scam.
Please change this: "Gautam Buddha[note 4] (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama;[note 5] Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni;[note 6] and The Buddha[note 7]) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher of ancient India who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE."
to more valid statement,
"Gautam Buddha[note 4] (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama;[note 5] Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni;[note 6] and The Buddha[note 7]) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE. He is also considered as a light of Asia."
Thank you for understanding. Truthisrealgem ( talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 22 October 2022. The result of the move review was Move endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Moved to The Buddha. There is quite a lot of opposition to this proposal, but as Wikipedians are aware, title choices are made through the WP:CONSENSUS process, which means evaluating arguments made through the lens of the project's policies and guidelines. In this case, it was extensively shown, particularly in the discussion section below the RM survey, that the WP:COMMONNAME policy, when comparing the titles "The Buddha" and "Gautama Buddha", is substantially in favour of the former title. Thus, all other things being equal, we should house the article at that title. However, the point was also made that "The Buddha" and also "Buddha" do not WP:PRECISEly define this individual, which was the reason why the RM was rejected in 2021. But the supporters counter this argument by pointing out that the page is also very clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for both "The Buddha" and "Buddha", when considering common usage and long-term significance. Furthermore, the redirects "The Buddha" and "Buddha" have pointed to this page for a long period of time. Finally, there was some support for moving simply to Buddha, but I don't see consensus for that at this time. Once the dust has settled on this request, editors may wish to revisit that and seek to establish a consensus in that direction too, noting that Buddha does already point to this article. I realise there will be some who opposed this RM and will be unhappy with this assessment, but as with previous contentious RMs such as Hillary Clinton and Climate change, hopefully the explanation above and our deference here to Wikipedia policy will set their minds at rest. — Amakuru ( talk) 10:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Gautama Buddha → The Buddha – This page should be renamed in line with both the body of reliable, secondary and expert sources cited in the article and WP:COMMONNAME, which both clearly favour the use of "The Buddha" over any alternatives in English. Ngrams makes this usage plain, and shows that even whole phrases such as "of the Buddha" and "by the Buddha" are more prevalent than "Gautama Buddha" - a legacy title not used in the title of a single cited source and for which little WP:COMMONNAME case can be made (in English). 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 (as frequently noted in the previous RM). This is also supported by WP:COMMONNAME as, when used in a sentence, "The Buddha" is also more prevalent than "Buddha" alone, as can be seen in an Ngrams of "of (the) Buddha" (with and without the "the") - a phrase used in common literary titles like "(The) life of the Buddha" - or other phrases [1] [2] [3]. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 07:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
"no prejudice"to "The Buddha" as a title. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"conforming to WP rules"- something that isn't a pejorative. Gautama Buddha is simply a totally unnatural page title in English, and it has never been demonstrated otherwise. And yes, people arriving at the wrong page do use hatnotes. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged."- making clear it refers to undiscussed controversial page moves. Iskandar323 ( talk) 18:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is any differentI would point out that it is drastically different in that this move is supported by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and your examples are not. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"no prejudice"to the title currently being proposed, as already noted. And this page is already the redirect destination and unchallenged primary topic for both Buddha and The Buddha. The WP:COMMONNAME case has also been made plain, so where you are getting WP:NWFCTM from I have no idea. What beggars belief is the staunch defense of the title 'Gautama Buddha' when it is all but unused and uncited in the actual article. The lone quoted source for 'Gautama Buddha' on the entire page is the The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, which is referenced in the 5th note, and even there it actually uses both terms in almost the same breath, saying:
"...GAUTAMA Buddha, also known as ŚĀKYAMUNI. In some accounts of the life of the Buddha..."Given the utterly threadbare referencing for the current title, it's actually somewhat remarkable people can unashamedly scoff at the rather more obvious common name of 'The Buddha' as if it is somehow implausible. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
there is fairly strong support for "Buddha" and "The Buddha"; however, we can leave those for a possible new move request (at any time – no prejudice). Now it's being suggested that it's disruptive to follow the closer's suggestion, one that specifically pointed out that this exact move could be requested at any time – no prejudice? I don't think that's fair to paint this RM as disruptive when it is precisely what was prescribed in the last close. Also boiling the support down to WP:NWFCTM is glossing over the Ngrams, the pageviews, and the references; these are the metrics we have to measure the commonality of a given title and they all support this move so when you say
there's no valid excuse for the moveI am not sure what other metric we could possibly use. When you say
Wikivoice should not be used to annoint religious figures as primarythat's an argument with no basis in any Wikipedia guideline or policy that I've ever seen and quickly falls apart on inspection: this article's subject is overwhelmingly referred to as the Buddha in the English language both inside and outside of Buddhism. If someone says the Buddha, they are talking about this article's subject. That's not an "anointment" of any kind, it is a reflection of how people refer to this article's subject, which is what article titles can and should do. This is both the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the WP:COMMONNAME per every metric we have, as has been demonstrated above. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"If someone says the Buddha, they are talking about this article's subject"is the definition of "not what first comes to mind." Supporters keep claiming PTOPIC and COMMONNAME, but these arguments weren't persuasive in the last two RMs, and don't appear to impress in this one. For my part I'm glossing over nothing. We disagree, and I've sufficiently stated my position. If you can't make better arguments, this requested move will also fail. BusterD ( talk) 23:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There is fairly strong support for "Buddha" and "The Buddha"so I don't think that the previous close should be relied on as a rationale for opposing this RM on any sort of procedural grounds. "There's other Buddhas" and "Buddha is not a name" are similarly not compelling reasons to oppose a page move, as they are non-issues in terms of how Wikipedia articles are determined. I do think, however, that we are just going to have to agree to disagree, but I did want to address your response and point out that the supporters aren't just claiming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, but that those claims are backed up by the data, a trait that is lacking in the opposing comments. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Among the first things one needs to learn about the Buddha are that (1) Buddha is not a name and (2) he wasn't the only Buddha. The current title is an aid to the reader in this regard and no different from preferring full names in other cases. In fact, this title is a perfect parallel of Mahatma Gandhi. Both combine a family name with an honorific in a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation.— Srnec ( talk) 23:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"In Pāli literature, he is more commonly referred to as Gotama Buddha; in Mahāyāna texts, Śākyamuni Buddha is more common."In the past decade, the usage gap between these terms has also shrunk, so there's a neutrality concern too. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There is fairly strong support for "Buddha" and "The Buddha"; however, we can leave those for a possible new move request (at any time – no prejudice)(emphasis was in the original comment). So if "nothing has changed" since then as you say, then there remains fairly strong support for this move. The last time this title was proposed was 2007, and Wikipedia is a very different environment than it was then. Consensus can certainly change in 15 years. As for the length of a moratorium, I've never seen one longer than one year, and given the time between RMs on this page, that wouldn't do much of anything. See WP:MORATORIUM, as that's not something to be enacted lightly, and nothing about this RM (that was specifically prescribed in the last move
at any time – no prejudice) warrants one. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
How does WP plan on competing with them?Thankfully the fact that there may be multiple possible names is an issue that is specifically addressed by WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy that supports the move, so the point you're making isn't an issue here. When you say
None of you has made any contributions to Buddhism-related articles as far as I can tell.I'm just going to say that you didn't look closely enough, and the only reason I'm responding here is to point out that error. Regardless of the accuracy of such a statement however, it's ultimately irrelevant because it's addressing the authority of the other editors instead of the merits of their words. We determine things by what can be shown and demonstrated through the lens of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and no weight is given to any arbitrary self-imposed authority. I don't care if you've come to this discussion having never even heard of this article's subject, in fact there's a certain quality to that mindset that should not be overlooked. There is no "only experts are allowed to give their opinions" criteria of WP:RM and that line of thinking runs entirely counter to what Wikipedia is. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
based only on Wikipedia principles". Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
"tell[ing] lies to children". Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles should not " tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.In this case, saying "The Buddha" is an oversimplification that implies "only one". (The = only one.) So, the "lie-to-children" is that the primary topic is the only instance of a being named Buddha, or that all other instances of beings named Buddha are false Buddhas. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
I wanted to put the survey on sounder footing with respect to the data. Some of this has already been added to the RM at the outset by Iskander, so this first portion is just a copy of that, in order to have it all in one, convenient place. I'll add some more, subsequently.
Here are the original six links from the OP, recopied here, captioned with search keywords, and annotated (collapsed, because they already appear at the top in a different form):
Six original ngrams tests from the OP
|
---|
OP's original six ngram links from
the top of the RM:
|
More coming. Mathglot ( talk) 06:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Five new ngram tests:
Note that the raw figures are one thing, and how to interpret them is something else. A forty to one factor in favor of "the Buddha" isn't necessarily the end of the story. Ngrams tallies are corpus hits, unlike web search tallies which are document hits; here, it matters for the raw tally how many times an individual document uses a particular term (whereas in web search tallies it does not). It could still be the case even with a 40 to 1 ratio that you could argue in favor of Gautama, based on the same reasoning that in the "George Washington" article most allusions to him are just "Washington", not his fullname. On the flip side, there are 166 occurrences of "George Washington", so careful interpretation of the details would be required. Same thing here; is 40 to 1 enough? It's not necessarily proof, and the thing to do is to keep trying different tests, and see if they all point the same way, are a mixed bag, or what. Next up, is book titles. Mathglot ( talk) 06:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This section compares the two options by testing how common each one is in the title of a book. We actually add a third option, because of the alternate spelling "Gotama"; this was more common in previous centuries, but is included for completeness. The collapse section contains the top 30 results in Google books for books having any one of these three expressions in the title:
The search is not case sensitive.
The query was: intitle:"Gautama Buddha" OR intitle:"Gotama Buddha" OR intitle:"the Buddha". The results appear to show a strong preference for book titles containing "The Buddha" in them, over books containing "Gautama Buddha".
I was originally going for 20 results, but I was surprised by the large number of pop psychology books, and didn't know whether everyone would accept those, so if you want to throw them out, that's probably a third of the total, so I added another ten more to make 30 results total. Note that your top 30 results may be different from what I got below, based on your preferred language, location, possibly search history, and other factors.
A search in books is a completely different kind of search than ngrams. Ngrams counts raw tallies of word counts in Google's book corpus; there's no "ranking algorithm" or "relevance algorithm" to move "more important words" to the top. Book search first makes a giant list of every book containing the desired phrase (in our case, an OR'd union of any of the three phrases), and then, in the important step, sorts them by its ranking algorithm. That's way too big a topic to go into here.
Could these book search results be biased in some way, with Google actually indexing more books containing the title "Gautama Buddha" than "The Buddha", with the latter ones all apear at the top of the list, and the former all pushed to the bottom? It's not impossible; but you would have to find some algorithm-based theory to account for it. One way to approach this is to keep going to the bottom of the results, by hitting next, next, next until there are no more, and get the entire list. There are only about 200 results total, so it would be possible to compile all of them and then doing the same tally; that avoid any possible bias in the list of the top 30. A quick glance at results 180 to 200 shows a similar pattern to the first 30, which is a pretty strong indicator that the same holds true for all 200.
Books full text search test
This test is similar to the book title search, but extends to all book content, not limited to the title only. Results of this test were so similar to the one above, so they are not shown here. For transparency, the books full text search query was: "Gautama Buddha" OR "Gotama Buddha" OR "the Buddha"
Next up is web search, which shouldn't take too long, and then a search in tertiary sources. That may take a day or two. Mathglot ( talk) 08:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This web search compares the two options by testing how common each one is in the HTML title of a web page (including "Gotama" as in the previous test). The collapsed section contains the top 30 results in Google web search for web pages having any one of the three expressions in the title tag. Title web search depends on content of the html <title> tag in the html, but the web designer can place anything they want as the "headline" or large header on the page, so the results may be different in a fulltext web search.
The query is: intitle:"Gautama Buddha" OR intitle:"Gotama Buddha" OR intitle:"the Buddha" -wikipedia -youtube -amazon.com.
In these results, the term "Gautama" occcurred five times, "Gotama" once, and "the Buddha" 22 times. Mathglot ( talk) 09:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This test is similar to the last one, except not limited to the title tag. This test was abandoned, because the results were too similar to the previous test, with a very large overlap, mostly just the same results in a different order, and a few different web pages added.
The query was: "Gautama Buddha" OR "Gotama Buddha" OR "the Buddha" -wikipedia -youtube -amazon.com. Mathglot ( talk) 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Then there is Google Scholar, which produces a crude 110,000+ hits for "The Buddha" to 12,000+ hits for "Gautama Buddha". Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
|start=980
or less), and then compare them. If every one you try all tends in the same direction, that is a strong indication that the overall tendency is probably accurate.
Mathglot (
talk)
11:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
intitle:"The Buddha" OR intitle:Gautama Buddha"
. An advantage to doing it this way, is that you don't have to rely on huge hit count tallies, you can just go through one page of results, or two pages (20 total) or three pages (30), and so on, and if there is a lopsided ratio, and you show the results, it should be obvious to anybody.
Mathglot (
talk)
11:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Tertiary sources are useful in order to determine the due weight of various formulations in secondary sources. I've created a (non-exhaustive) compendium of tertiary sources (encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.) which can be found at /Tertiary sources. Mathglot ( talk) 10:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I examined the /Tertiary sources listed so far, and here's the tally I came up with based on the bolded headword or section/chapter title in the source:
The numerous tests carried out and listed above in this § Discussion section all tend in the same direction and are very strong evidence that the Buddha or Buddha is the correct choice here.
In particular, the results of the
examination of tertiary sources on its own is decisive: 28–1–3 33–2–6 in favor of Buddha or the Buddha, over Gautama (or variants of it). As this method is explicitly listed at
WP:NOR (which is policy) as a means of determining
WP:DUE WEIGHT, this result by itself is sufficient to determine the outcome.
The other tests carried out all back up the result from tertiary sources, including:
The conclusion is inescapable: the WP:COMMONNAME is the Buddha (or Buddha) by agreement of every possible method of determining COMMONNAME available, including especially the policy-based test of WP:TERTIARY sources found at Talk:Gautama Buddha/Tertiary sources. Mathglot ( talk) 10:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC) – added latest tally; by Mathglot ( talk) 19:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
This edit, edit-summary reword there is nothing called lay life when all life is lay within a protective bubbl
changed
The Buddha was born into an aristocratic family in the Shakya clan, but renounced lay life.
into
The Buddha was born to wealthy parents and raised in a manner so sheltered as to be unaware of inequity and suffering around him. In his late twenties, when he is able to break away from the protective shield, traditionally recounted in the Buddhist tradition, in four allegorical vignettes, he abandons his family to seek the life of a wandering hermit.
I can't make sense of all life is lay within a protective bubbl
, but "renounced lay life" is perfectly clear and concise summary.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
09:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Translations use the term "household life"; see Householder (Buddhism):
In English translations of Buddhist texts, householder denotes a variety of terms. Most broadly, it refers to any layperson, and most narrowly, to a wealthy and prestigious familial patriarch.[1] In contemporary Buddhist communities, householder is often used synonymously with laity, or non-monastics.
The Buddhist notion of householder is often contrasted with that of wandering ascetics (Pali: Pāḷi: samaṇa; Sanskrit: śramaṇa) and monastics (bhikkhu and bhikkhuni), who would not live (for extended periods) in a normal house and who would pursue freedom from attachments to houses and families.
Pabbaja Sutta: The Going Forth:
"Household life is crowded, a realm of dust, while going forth is the open air." Seeing this, he went forth.
So, I'd recommand "household life." Regarding renunciation, see Great Renunciation, also called "Great departure." "Departure" could be a usefull synonym for "renouncement." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The justification for recognition as religious professional and the criteria for a laynun to qualify as one are outlined in the six articles of the aforementioned two-page document issued by the XBA in June 2012. Article 1 states the justification for recognizing laynuns as religious professionals. Ascetic and pious women (commonly called caigu) are a unique phenomenon of a group of women who renounce laylife to live in temples [halls], are single, vegetarian, and wear distinctive laynun clothing ... This article justifies the recognition of laynuns as religious professionals by the criterion of "leaving the family" (chujia 出家), a term in Buddhism that represents clerics and distinguishes them from devotees and laypersons by the criterion of having renounced lay life—leaving their family. Therefore, Article 1 establishes the equivalency of laynuns and clerics on the basis that they have both renounced lay life.Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I prefer not to make it too long; the lead summarizes, the body goes into the details. NB: you wrote diff:
The Buddha was born to wealthy parents and raised in a manner so sheltered as to be unaware of inequity and suffering around him. In his late twenties, when he is able to break away from the protective shield, traditionally recounted in the Buddhist tradition, in four allegorical vignettes, he abandons his family to seek the life of a wandering hermit.
From this we could take "unaware of inequity and suffering around him" and copy-edit it into "he became aware of the inequity and suffering around him." This already implies he was not aware of this at first, but could be expanded. It would then become
According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha was born in Lumbini in what is now Nepal, into an aristocratic [royal] family of the Shakya clan. [Raised in a sheltered way,] he became aware of the inequity and suffering around him as a young adult, and abandoned his family [in his twenties] to seek the life of a wandering hermit.
("Royal to be discussed elsewhere, not here). NB: "hermit" is not the best choice of words; it may be associated with Pratyekabuddhayāna. "Ascetic" would be more to the point. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The Buddha was born in Lumbini in what is now Nepal to highborn parents of the Shakya clan. Raised in a highly sheltered way, he was shocked as a young adult by the awareness of inequity and suffering around him, and eventually abandoned his family to seek answers as a wandering ascetic.Highborn == of noble birth. There is some mild repetition born and highborn, but it is within the tolerance of language. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I know. "Buddhist tradition" refers to the popular understanding, the hagiographies of his life. Maybe change
he attained a profound insight into rebirth, suffering, and how they can be overcome,
into
he attained a profound insight how rebirth and suffering can be overcome,
? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Buddha’s quest for enlightenment occurs in the ARIYAPARIYESANĀSUTTA. It is noteworthy that many of the most familiar events in the Buddha’s life are absent in some of the early accounts: the miraculous conception and birth; the death of his mother, Queen MĀYĀ; his sheltered y outh; the four chariot rides outside the palace where he beholds the four portents (CATURNIMITTA); his departure from the palace; and his abandonment of his wife, YAŚODHARĀ, and his newborn son, RĀHULA. Those stories appear much later, in works like AŚVAGHOṢA’s beloved verse narrative, the BUDDHACARITA, from the second century CE; the SARVĀSTIVĀDA school’s third- or fourth-century CE LALITAVISTARA; and the NIDĀNAKATHĀ, the first biography of the Buddha in Pāli, attributed to BUDDHAGHOSA in the fifth century CE, some eight centuries after the Buddha’s passing.
Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. [...] Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that can increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand.
all the events mentioned in the account revolve around the issue of the Deathless: the discovery of the Deathless, the teaching of the Deathless, and the Buddha's success in helping others to attain the Deathless.
According to Steven Collins, a synonym widely used for nirvana in early texts is "deathless" or "deathfree" (Pali: amata, sanskrit: amrta) and refers to a condition "where there is no death, because there is also no birth, no coming into existence, nothing made by conditioning, and therefore no time."
This
edit request to
Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "In later senturies" to "In later centuries" Hypnag0gia ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Community,
The article on Gautama Buddha requires, as is displayed on the panel, a rework in terms of what has been listed as "prose." Unfortunately, whenever any user tries to add any information, a group of self-appointed hegemons immediately revert the edits under the pretense of "LEAD" or "UNDUE", etc.
95% of the last 100 edits (literally - see revision history) are made by the same 2-3 individuals, who seem to have taken it upon themselves to revert to whichever version they worked on last. This is not how Wikipedia works, it is meant to be contributed by everyone who are interested. Instead of reverting like bots, improve on the work of new contributors.
Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordzenberg ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Gautama Buddha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was no country called ancient India in the past, so don't keep the biased information that is shame to WIKI validity. You are indirectly helping to be the part of scam.
Please change this: "Gautam Buddha[note 4] (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama;[note 5] Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni;[note 6] and The Buddha[note 7]) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher of ancient India who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE."
to more valid statement,
"Gautam Buddha[note 4] (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama;[note 5] Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni;[note 6] and The Buddha[note 7]) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE. He is also considered as a light of Asia."
Thank you for understanding. Truthisrealgem ( talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 22 October 2022. The result of the move review was Move endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Moved to The Buddha. There is quite a lot of opposition to this proposal, but as Wikipedians are aware, title choices are made through the WP:CONSENSUS process, which means evaluating arguments made through the lens of the project's policies and guidelines. In this case, it was extensively shown, particularly in the discussion section below the RM survey, that the WP:COMMONNAME policy, when comparing the titles "The Buddha" and "Gautama Buddha", is substantially in favour of the former title. Thus, all other things being equal, we should house the article at that title. However, the point was also made that "The Buddha" and also "Buddha" do not WP:PRECISEly define this individual, which was the reason why the RM was rejected in 2021. But the supporters counter this argument by pointing out that the page is also very clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for both "The Buddha" and "Buddha", when considering common usage and long-term significance. Furthermore, the redirects "The Buddha" and "Buddha" have pointed to this page for a long period of time. Finally, there was some support for moving simply to Buddha, but I don't see consensus for that at this time. Once the dust has settled on this request, editors may wish to revisit that and seek to establish a consensus in that direction too, noting that Buddha does already point to this article. I realise there will be some who opposed this RM and will be unhappy with this assessment, but as with previous contentious RMs such as Hillary Clinton and Climate change, hopefully the explanation above and our deference here to Wikipedia policy will set their minds at rest. — Amakuru ( talk) 10:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Gautama Buddha → The Buddha – This page should be renamed in line with both the body of reliable, secondary and expert sources cited in the article and WP:COMMONNAME, which both clearly favour the use of "The Buddha" over any alternatives in English. Ngrams makes this usage plain, and shows that even whole phrases such as "of the Buddha" and "by the Buddha" are more prevalent than "Gautama Buddha" - a legacy title not used in the title of a single cited source and for which little WP:COMMONNAME case can be made (in English). 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 (as frequently noted in the previous RM). This is also supported by WP:COMMONNAME as, when used in a sentence, "The Buddha" is also more prevalent than "Buddha" alone, as can be seen in an Ngrams of "of (the) Buddha" (with and without the "the") - a phrase used in common literary titles like "(The) life of the Buddha" - or other phrases [1] [2] [3]. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 07:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
"no prejudice"to "The Buddha" as a title. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"conforming to WP rules"- something that isn't a pejorative. Gautama Buddha is simply a totally unnatural page title in English, and it has never been demonstrated otherwise. And yes, people arriving at the wrong page do use hatnotes. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged."- making clear it refers to undiscussed controversial page moves. Iskandar323 ( talk) 18:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is any differentI would point out that it is drastically different in that this move is supported by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and your examples are not. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"no prejudice"to the title currently being proposed, as already noted. And this page is already the redirect destination and unchallenged primary topic for both Buddha and The Buddha. The WP:COMMONNAME case has also been made plain, so where you are getting WP:NWFCTM from I have no idea. What beggars belief is the staunch defense of the title 'Gautama Buddha' when it is all but unused and uncited in the actual article. The lone quoted source for 'Gautama Buddha' on the entire page is the The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, which is referenced in the 5th note, and even there it actually uses both terms in almost the same breath, saying:
"...GAUTAMA Buddha, also known as ŚĀKYAMUNI. In some accounts of the life of the Buddha..."Given the utterly threadbare referencing for the current title, it's actually somewhat remarkable people can unashamedly scoff at the rather more obvious common name of 'The Buddha' as if it is somehow implausible. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
there is fairly strong support for "Buddha" and "The Buddha"; however, we can leave those for a possible new move request (at any time – no prejudice). Now it's being suggested that it's disruptive to follow the closer's suggestion, one that specifically pointed out that this exact move could be requested at any time – no prejudice? I don't think that's fair to paint this RM as disruptive when it is precisely what was prescribed in the last close. Also boiling the support down to WP:NWFCTM is glossing over the Ngrams, the pageviews, and the references; these are the metrics we have to measure the commonality of a given title and they all support this move so when you say
there's no valid excuse for the moveI am not sure what other metric we could possibly use. When you say
Wikivoice should not be used to annoint religious figures as primarythat's an argument with no basis in any Wikipedia guideline or policy that I've ever seen and quickly falls apart on inspection: this article's subject is overwhelmingly referred to as the Buddha in the English language both inside and outside of Buddhism. If someone says the Buddha, they are talking about this article's subject. That's not an "anointment" of any kind, it is a reflection of how people refer to this article's subject, which is what article titles can and should do. This is both the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the WP:COMMONNAME per every metric we have, as has been demonstrated above. - Aoidh ( talk) 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"If someone says the Buddha, they are talking about this article's subject"is the definition of "not what first comes to mind." Supporters keep claiming PTOPIC and COMMONNAME, but these arguments weren't persuasive in the last two RMs, and don't appear to impress in this one. For my part I'm glossing over nothing. We disagree, and I've sufficiently stated my position. If you can't make better arguments, this requested move will also fail. BusterD ( talk) 23:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There is fairly strong support for "Buddha" and "The Buddha"so I don't think that the previous close should be relied on as a rationale for opposing this RM on any sort of procedural grounds. "There's other Buddhas" and "Buddha is not a name" are similarly not compelling reasons to oppose a page move, as they are non-issues in terms of how Wikipedia articles are determined. I do think, however, that we are just going to have to agree to disagree, but I did want to address your response and point out that the supporters aren't just claiming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, but that those claims are backed up by the data, a trait that is lacking in the opposing comments. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Among the first things one needs to learn about the Buddha are that (1) Buddha is not a name and (2) he wasn't the only Buddha. The current title is an aid to the reader in this regard and no different from preferring full names in other cases. In fact, this title is a perfect parallel of Mahatma Gandhi. Both combine a family name with an honorific in a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation.— Srnec ( talk) 23:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"In Pāli literature, he is more commonly referred to as Gotama Buddha; in Mahāyāna texts, Śākyamuni Buddha is more common."In the past decade, the usage gap between these terms has also shrunk, so there's a neutrality concern too. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There is fairly strong support for "Buddha" and "The Buddha"; however, we can leave those for a possible new move request (at any time – no prejudice)(emphasis was in the original comment). So if "nothing has changed" since then as you say, then there remains fairly strong support for this move. The last time this title was proposed was 2007, and Wikipedia is a very different environment than it was then. Consensus can certainly change in 15 years. As for the length of a moratorium, I've never seen one longer than one year, and given the time between RMs on this page, that wouldn't do much of anything. See WP:MORATORIUM, as that's not something to be enacted lightly, and nothing about this RM (that was specifically prescribed in the last move
at any time – no prejudice) warrants one. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
How does WP plan on competing with them?Thankfully the fact that there may be multiple possible names is an issue that is specifically addressed by WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy that supports the move, so the point you're making isn't an issue here. When you say
None of you has made any contributions to Buddhism-related articles as far as I can tell.I'm just going to say that you didn't look closely enough, and the only reason I'm responding here is to point out that error. Regardless of the accuracy of such a statement however, it's ultimately irrelevant because it's addressing the authority of the other editors instead of the merits of their words. We determine things by what can be shown and demonstrated through the lens of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and no weight is given to any arbitrary self-imposed authority. I don't care if you've come to this discussion having never even heard of this article's subject, in fact there's a certain quality to that mindset that should not be overlooked. There is no "only experts are allowed to give their opinions" criteria of WP:RM and that line of thinking runs entirely counter to what Wikipedia is. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
based only on Wikipedia principles". Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
"tell[ing] lies to children". Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles should not " tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when they don't.In this case, saying "The Buddha" is an oversimplification that implies "only one". (The = only one.) So, the "lie-to-children" is that the primary topic is the only instance of a being named Buddha, or that all other instances of beings named Buddha are false Buddhas. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
I wanted to put the survey on sounder footing with respect to the data. Some of this has already been added to the RM at the outset by Iskander, so this first portion is just a copy of that, in order to have it all in one, convenient place. I'll add some more, subsequently.
Here are the original six links from the OP, recopied here, captioned with search keywords, and annotated (collapsed, because they already appear at the top in a different form):
Six original ngrams tests from the OP
|
---|
OP's original six ngram links from
the top of the RM:
|
More coming. Mathglot ( talk) 06:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Five new ngram tests:
Note that the raw figures are one thing, and how to interpret them is something else. A forty to one factor in favor of "the Buddha" isn't necessarily the end of the story. Ngrams tallies are corpus hits, unlike web search tallies which are document hits; here, it matters for the raw tally how many times an individual document uses a particular term (whereas in web search tallies it does not). It could still be the case even with a 40 to 1 ratio that you could argue in favor of Gautama, based on the same reasoning that in the "George Washington" article most allusions to him are just "Washington", not his fullname. On the flip side, there are 166 occurrences of "George Washington", so careful interpretation of the details would be required. Same thing here; is 40 to 1 enough? It's not necessarily proof, and the thing to do is to keep trying different tests, and see if they all point the same way, are a mixed bag, or what. Next up, is book titles. Mathglot ( talk) 06:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This section compares the two options by testing how common each one is in the title of a book. We actually add a third option, because of the alternate spelling "Gotama"; this was more common in previous centuries, but is included for completeness. The collapse section contains the top 30 results in Google books for books having any one of these three expressions in the title:
The search is not case sensitive.
The query was: intitle:"Gautama Buddha" OR intitle:"Gotama Buddha" OR intitle:"the Buddha". The results appear to show a strong preference for book titles containing "The Buddha" in them, over books containing "Gautama Buddha".
I was originally going for 20 results, but I was surprised by the large number of pop psychology books, and didn't know whether everyone would accept those, so if you want to throw them out, that's probably a third of the total, so I added another ten more to make 30 results total. Note that your top 30 results may be different from what I got below, based on your preferred language, location, possibly search history, and other factors.
A search in books is a completely different kind of search than ngrams. Ngrams counts raw tallies of word counts in Google's book corpus; there's no "ranking algorithm" or "relevance algorithm" to move "more important words" to the top. Book search first makes a giant list of every book containing the desired phrase (in our case, an OR'd union of any of the three phrases), and then, in the important step, sorts them by its ranking algorithm. That's way too big a topic to go into here.
Could these book search results be biased in some way, with Google actually indexing more books containing the title "Gautama Buddha" than "The Buddha", with the latter ones all apear at the top of the list, and the former all pushed to the bottom? It's not impossible; but you would have to find some algorithm-based theory to account for it. One way to approach this is to keep going to the bottom of the results, by hitting next, next, next until there are no more, and get the entire list. There are only about 200 results total, so it would be possible to compile all of them and then doing the same tally; that avoid any possible bias in the list of the top 30. A quick glance at results 180 to 200 shows a similar pattern to the first 30, which is a pretty strong indicator that the same holds true for all 200.
Books full text search test
This test is similar to the book title search, but extends to all book content, not limited to the title only. Results of this test were so similar to the one above, so they are not shown here. For transparency, the books full text search query was: "Gautama Buddha" OR "Gotama Buddha" OR "the Buddha"
Next up is web search, which shouldn't take too long, and then a search in tertiary sources. That may take a day or two. Mathglot ( talk) 08:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This web search compares the two options by testing how common each one is in the HTML title of a web page (including "Gotama" as in the previous test). The collapsed section contains the top 30 results in Google web search for web pages having any one of the three expressions in the title tag. Title web search depends on content of the html <title> tag in the html, but the web designer can place anything they want as the "headline" or large header on the page, so the results may be different in a fulltext web search.
The query is: intitle:"Gautama Buddha" OR intitle:"Gotama Buddha" OR intitle:"the Buddha" -wikipedia -youtube -amazon.com.
In these results, the term "Gautama" occcurred five times, "Gotama" once, and "the Buddha" 22 times. Mathglot ( talk) 09:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This test is similar to the last one, except not limited to the title tag. This test was abandoned, because the results were too similar to the previous test, with a very large overlap, mostly just the same results in a different order, and a few different web pages added.
The query was: "Gautama Buddha" OR "Gotama Buddha" OR "the Buddha" -wikipedia -youtube -amazon.com. Mathglot ( talk) 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Then there is Google Scholar, which produces a crude 110,000+ hits for "The Buddha" to 12,000+ hits for "Gautama Buddha". Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
|start=980
or less), and then compare them. If every one you try all tends in the same direction, that is a strong indication that the overall tendency is probably accurate.
Mathglot (
talk)
11:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
intitle:"The Buddha" OR intitle:Gautama Buddha"
. An advantage to doing it this way, is that you don't have to rely on huge hit count tallies, you can just go through one page of results, or two pages (20 total) or three pages (30), and so on, and if there is a lopsided ratio, and you show the results, it should be obvious to anybody.
Mathglot (
talk)
11:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Tertiary sources are useful in order to determine the due weight of various formulations in secondary sources. I've created a (non-exhaustive) compendium of tertiary sources (encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.) which can be found at /Tertiary sources. Mathglot ( talk) 10:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I examined the /Tertiary sources listed so far, and here's the tally I came up with based on the bolded headword or section/chapter title in the source:
The numerous tests carried out and listed above in this § Discussion section all tend in the same direction and are very strong evidence that the Buddha or Buddha is the correct choice here.
In particular, the results of the
examination of tertiary sources on its own is decisive: 28–1–3 33–2–6 in favor of Buddha or the Buddha, over Gautama (or variants of it). As this method is explicitly listed at
WP:NOR (which is policy) as a means of determining
WP:DUE WEIGHT, this result by itself is sufficient to determine the outcome.
The other tests carried out all back up the result from tertiary sources, including:
The conclusion is inescapable: the WP:COMMONNAME is the Buddha (or Buddha) by agreement of every possible method of determining COMMONNAME available, including especially the policy-based test of WP:TERTIARY sources found at Talk:Gautama Buddha/Tertiary sources. Mathglot ( talk) 10:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC) – added latest tally; by Mathglot ( talk) 19:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)