This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Buddha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
Additional info (sources and quotes) on Buddha's Birthplace can be found at Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes |
An extensive, though not necessarily exhaustive, repository of tertiary sources on the Buddha can also be found at Tertiary sources |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Buddha was born in Nepal. 103.174.168.54 ( talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
\
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)
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.
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.
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)
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]
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
google260
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
The Buddha only has a capitalized article when it's at the beginning of a sentenceI 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)
every "oppose" in the previous discussion is so obviously (well meaning but) mistaken that an admin should just step in and get them to knock it off- you surely know how not to gain consensus. But you're right that WP:THE is "crystalline clear":
Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met:
1. If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article.
Current lead: Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.
Notable: I think The Buddha is not primarily notable or known for being a wandering ascetic, but rather for being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism as per majority of WP:RS reliable sources
Giving such high priority to "wandering ascetic" seems to violates several WP guidelines
"Wandering ascetic" can be mentioned in relevant subsequent sentences.
Therefore, the lead voice needs to updated to:
Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.
See similar: /info/en/?search=Socrates
RogerYg ( talk) 19:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
A better translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"
RogerYg ( talk) 06:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
RogerYg, your entire argument is a non-starter; please read up on basic elements of Wikipedia articles such as Notability and Verifiability, two very different concepts. For one thing, WP:Notability is about topics and not about articles; that is number one. In particular, notability is a threshold which describes whether a given topic deserves to have an article or not. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, Notability has absolutely zero to do with the content or development of the article. Claiming that any given part of the article, whether the lead, or the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE or anything else has to be "notable" is just nonsense. In fact, the Notability policy specifically rejecs this notion in the Nutshell box at the top:
and then lower down there is a whole section entitled, § Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists that underlines it again in more detail. So, you can just forget about the idea that notability has anything to do with the lead sentence—it does not.
Secondly, what goes into the lead sentence is described by MOS:LEADSENTENCE (guideline), which starts out:
Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about what are the most salient points to include in the lead sentence, but stating that the Buddha was a "wandering ascetic" cannot be denied, and in my view is a defining characteristic of the Buddha and his life. You may reasonably argue against it, but appealing to Notability is irrelevant. Also, the idea that "wandering" has connotations of "lost" are idiosyncratic imho; that is not what it means to most native speakers (it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost"). In conclusion, the proposal inherent in your section title "Lead Sentence needs to focus on 'Notable' aspects" is contrary both to Wikipedia's policy on WP:Notability, as well as Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE, leaving your proposal without a leg to stand on. Mathglot ( talk) 08:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
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).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Buddha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
Additional info (sources and quotes) on Buddha's Birthplace can be found at Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes |
An extensive, though not necessarily exhaustive, repository of tertiary sources on the Buddha can also be found at Tertiary sources |
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Buddha was born in Nepal. 103.174.168.54 ( talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
\
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)
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.
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.
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)
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]
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
google260
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
The Buddha only has a capitalized article when it's at the beginning of a sentenceI 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)
every "oppose" in the previous discussion is so obviously (well meaning but) mistaken that an admin should just step in and get them to knock it off- you surely know how not to gain consensus. But you're right that WP:THE is "crystalline clear":
Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met:
1. If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article.
Current lead: Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.
Notable: I think The Buddha is not primarily notable or known for being a wandering ascetic, but rather for being a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism as per majority of WP:RS reliable sources
Giving such high priority to "wandering ascetic" seems to violates several WP guidelines
"Wandering ascetic" can be mentioned in relevant subsequent sentences.
Therefore, the lead voice needs to updated to:
Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha ('the awakened'), was a religious teacher and founder of Buddhism who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE.
See similar: /info/en/?search=Socrates
RogerYg ( talk) 19:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
A better translation for Śramaṇa, used by several scholars is a "spiritual ascetic" or "spiritual seeker"
RogerYg ( talk) 06:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
RogerYg, your entire argument is a non-starter; please read up on basic elements of Wikipedia articles such as Notability and Verifiability, two very different concepts. For one thing, WP:Notability is about topics and not about articles; that is number one. In particular, notability is a threshold which describes whether a given topic deserves to have an article or not. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, Notability has absolutely zero to do with the content or development of the article. Claiming that any given part of the article, whether the lead, or the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE or anything else has to be "notable" is just nonsense. In fact, the Notability policy specifically rejecs this notion in the Nutshell box at the top:
and then lower down there is a whole section entitled, § Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists that underlines it again in more detail. So, you can just forget about the idea that notability has anything to do with the lead sentence—it does not.
Secondly, what goes into the lead sentence is described by MOS:LEADSENTENCE (guideline), which starts out:
Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about what are the most salient points to include in the lead sentence, but stating that the Buddha was a "wandering ascetic" cannot be denied, and in my view is a defining characteristic of the Buddha and his life. You may reasonably argue against it, but appealing to Notability is irrelevant. Also, the idea that "wandering" has connotations of "lost" are idiosyncratic imho; that is not what it means to most native speakers (it's more like "aimless", or "no fixed goal", but not "lost"). In conclusion, the proposal inherent in your section title "Lead Sentence needs to focus on 'Notable' aspects" is contrary both to Wikipedia's policy on WP:Notability, as well as Wikipedia's guideline on the WP:LEADSENTENCE, leaving your proposal without a leg to stand on. Mathglot ( talk) 08:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
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).