Talk:Gautama Buddha

About the references cited about the birthplace in the wikipedia article on Gautam Buddha

My thoughts exactly. In fact, I have also placed a similar request vis-a-vis Lumbini, Nepal; based on the UNESCO reference.

Also, the out-dated, speculative references about ......Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India..... Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11] should be removed. I believe Wikipedia's original vision is to educate and clarify, and not to confuse or mislead readers seeking facts.

Highly relevant data touching on the indigenous Nepalese Newar ethnic group, still in existence today, have also been omitted. I recommend an evidence-based section on the Newaris, since the surviving Shakya (Sakya) clan largely belongs to this native Himalayan group in modern times.

Last but not least, the section on Buddha's Teachings require proper editing, if the Wikipedia page on Buddha wants to be ranked high, as a credible source of online information in this regard. In the global IT age, out-dated, inadequate, incorrect or even false information can easily be spotted. As such, my recommendation to Wikipedia editorial committtee would be - uphold the gold standard, when it comes to write-ups and references. Otherwise, over time, Wikipedia will develop a reputation for providing biased or unreliable information. Obviously, this will degrade its value, in both intellectual and commercial context. (Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Thoughts about Wikipedia editors' references on Gautam Buddha's birthplace

Here are my reflections after reading both the wikipedia articles on Gautam Buddha and Talk:Gautam Buddha ". First and foremost, it would be injustice to the whole humanity and to the generations to come to try to settle the birthplace of Gautam Buddha by propoganda rather than scientific research and archaeological findings. Lets be honest and focus on evidence and facts known so far and rhe first requirement for an honest scientific appraisal is the ability to put aside the conflict of interest and regional biases.Unfortunately that does not appear to be case among many editors here in this article in my observation. Please mention the references from aracheological journal or Research journal . References from ' informational web pages trying to promote tourism of a region' or from non-research article/news published in the lay press certainly do not merit citation. Let the process make us all more enlightened rather than feel manipulated and propogandized.

I was also looking at the discussion and disput about how to refer to the place with adjective of Modern/Ancient etc. The simple answer to that is look at what a standard contemporary archaelogy and history journal or experts would do. I have seen professional articles mention what was the place/region/country called at the historic time and what it is called now/where is it when when they refer about a place. The political boundries are man made and they kept on changing at different times in the past for differnet reason and now I see them being less irrevelant each new year due to globalization. Lets be focused on making sure our collective effort results in authentic information. Having said this, here is what I found looking at the references cited for place of birth in the article.

Based on some archeological findings and inscriptions, Buddha was born in Lumbini, modern Nepal[5][6] which is a UNESCO world heritage site.[5]

-Reference [5] comes from UNESCO website which lists the world heritage site. This is a highly credible UN institution so far as I know. I could not find any online link for the research work published on the birth place of Gautam Buddha from here. Does any body know of any free links?

- Reference [6] is from the victoria and Albert museum webpage. This is Victora and Albert museum webpage mentions the birthplace Gautam Buddha as Lumbini, Nepal. I presume, they are fairly credible but again this is museum webpage and not a research journal.

Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11]

-Reference [7] is the different page of the same website mentioned in Reference [6[ underheading of Buddist Piligrimmage site in India.It just mentions Gautam Buddha lived in Lumbini for first 29 years of Life.IT DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT BIRTH PLACE

-Reference [8] is a newspaper article mentioning about claims made in the past cited by state minister of Orrisa in a meeting. This is a article in lay press and not a research article.

-Reference [9] This is also a news article and NOT a research article. This article cites opinions of Superident of a Orrisa Museum who claims the birthplace  ; official position of government of India as 'Lumbini, Nepal to be the birth place of Buddha; Opinion of official Lumibini Development Trust of Nepal; a Indian expert on Buddhist archaeology ; and a noted Indian historian with his Ph D thesis on Emperor Ashoka. Overall the article highlighted the opion made by the superidendent of the museum and that the experts were skeptical as they thought the evidence found so far pointed towards Lumbini,Nepal.

-Reference [10] This article is published in a Srilankan Newspaper. NOT a research article. Mentions of the views of Orrisa Museum superitendent mentioned in the Reference [9]in a promotional way.

-Reference [11] This is an article published in Orissa Historical Research Journal. The author Ajit Kumar Tripathi is a Development Commissioner-cum-Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa. The article deleberates the case for Orrisa and againt Nepal.I enjoyed reading this article but this is more of an opinion article and Not a Research article.I think the author attempts his best to make a case for Orrisa but most of the points he makes is based on unconfirmed history rather than archeological datas . However, the greatest short-coming of this article is the lack of citation of reference to the points it makes except for the mention of names of some archeologist/historians in the text.

Here are my requests:

1. The scientic data/ archaeological finding on Lumbini,Nepal are the most recognized and authorative compared to the other places looking at the references but the implied meaning /wording of the sentence downplays the significance.This sentence also does not convey the official UNESCO position on Lumini,Nepal as birth place of Buddha and which is the reason why it is a world heritage site. My suggestion is to change it using simple sentence for the sake of clarity without modifying or confusing the UNESCO's views. So please change: Based on some archeological findings and inscriptions, Buddha was born in Lumbini, modern Nepal[5][6] which is a UNESCO world heritage site.[5] on first paragraph TO UNESCO lists Lumbini,Nepal as a world heritage site and birthplace of Gautam Buddha [5]

2. The referece cited are not apropriate to make such assertion. It would be over-extending or misconstruing the message in those references which are news or opinion in lay press except Reference [11] which is a opinion on a historical research journal. Please change : Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11] on first paragraph TO There are also claims about birth place of Gautam Buddha to be Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11]

Agreed! And whoever wrote these details, the UNESCO reference provided has scholar journal research as well. Editors should understand that any Indian claim about Buddha is fake based on the following reasons above. Seaboy123 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on the reasons above, administrator is requested to remove false claims of Buddha's birth in India from the 1st paragraph and the conception paragraph. Seaboy123 (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if removing the info is not still in consensus, changing to what our user above has described certainly serve both interests, and I shall do so. If any one has something to say, please do so here. I would have removed the Orissa claims based on "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" as the references provided are way off from the mainstream view and are Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but doing so may provoke reverts in edits by others so I will not remove anything Seaboy123 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddha didn't actually start Buddhism

The first line reads "Siddhārtha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism."

This is somewhat incorrect. Buddha did not want to start any 'isms' nor did he want himself to be made a deity. A more accurate description would be...

"Siddhārtha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from ancient India on whose teachings Buddhism was founded."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.93.179 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No bad actually! (apart double posing missing signature ;0) ) - I agree. What do the other think?--Dia^ (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

[Double posting removed]. I agree with this proposed change in wording and will boldly make the change. Sunray (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You fools...say.."Siddhartha Gautama was a spiritual teacher from Nepal. He was born in Nepal " n u so called wikis ur line "...Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, India or Kapileswara, Odisha,India." is now surely gonna rage n concerns....u don't have any idea wat a blunder you r doing....He was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal....dats it...its prove...now correct yourself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sznga (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC) none of these links open. Please provide some other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.228.60 (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sakyamuni

"Sakyamuni" is a redirect to Gautama Buddha. But what is Sakyamuni? I could not find it in the article. This seems to be a larger problem: a redirect which is not assessed in the article. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This only a problem as far as searching in the page is concerned, because of special characters. The second paragraph of the lede explains the name Śākyamuni, but search for "Sakyamuni" will not pull that up. Searching for "Shakyamuni" misses this first reference as well, although the article does reference that name later on (which is another problem, because it means we are using two different spellings of the same name). I'm not sure what the solution is.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the italics to bold for this name. Tengu800 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Could not have figured that out. And did not want read the whole article now. In fact I was only searching for Pagoda of Fogong Temple in China, also known as "Sakyamuni Pagoda". Odd thing that "Sakyamuni Pagoda" itself redirects to "Seokgatap" which is in South Korea. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Sakya" is the Cast name of the Siddartha and Word "Muni" mean Spiritual Leader. It's correct to use Sakyamuni as another name for Gautama Buddha, In Sri Lanka we more commonly use that word as a synonym to Gautama Buddha, but it's incorret to use as Sidartha Gautama. Gautama always use before name Buddha as there are many other Buddha(Tanhankara,Medhankara, Deepankara,...) according to Tripiṭaka. D dasun (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Enlightenment Story

Going back to the story of Siddhartha's Enlightenment, I think there are a few things missing. For example, the story could go more into detail about his confrontations with the demon Mara. One of the most well known scholars on comparative religion Huston Smith discusses the temptation of Siddhartha in its different stages: Siddhartha is first tempted with wealth but denies it as futile, then tempted by Mara's seductive daughters for sexual pleasure yet they turn into old women and wither away, reinforcing Siddhartha's belief of the impermanence of the material world, then Mara tries to scare him by unleashing a demonic army that shoots flaming arrows at Siddhartha, yet they all turn into flower petals at contact, proving the point of pain being mind over matter and responsible for the subject, able to be manipulated by pure will. Mara then places a copy image or replica of Siddhartha right in front of him trying to question his ego, saying that the prince is too arrogant thinking he is so special as to find Enlightenment. Siddhartha retaliates saying that Enlightenment is not his own and he did not come up with any of the ideas yet they are universal truths he is just exploring. Mara becomes furious at this loss and leaves; Siddhartha then reaches enlightenment underneath the Bodhi Tree. This story is incredibly interesting and I feel like it should be included, what do you guys think? MsTania66 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is worth adding and I encourage you to do that. You might want to condense what you have said slightly. Also, it will need a citation from a reliable source. Huston Smith is a good one. If you need any help, please contact me on my talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha was born in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal

The article about Gautama Buddha in Wikipedia should be corrected in terms of His birthplace. There are archaeological evidences in Kapilvastu, Lumbini, Nepal that prove that Gautama Buddha was born there and not in Orissa, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.90.134 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2012

Romove: Having been recognised by the men of King Bimbisara, Bimbisara offered him the throne after hearing of Siddhartha's quest. Replace: After King Bimbisara's men recognised Siddhartha and he learned of his quest, the king offered Siddhartha the throne. (This is a very difficult sentence to fix and I would recommend a total rewriting of it instead of an attempt at editing it as written. The original sentence, however, states that Bimbisara's men recognised Bimbisara, which is not the case.) Aquak (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Tradition in China and Japan

Someone has removed what I added. Tradition in China and Japan is that Shakyamuni was born on the 8th of April 1029 BCE, and passed away on the 15th of February 949 BCE. This belief is also held in some schools which believe in the Three periods of the Dharma, and is also what great scholars of the past believed, including Tiantai and Nichiren. I cited Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism as a reference for this. Surely it belongs on Wikipedia as it is a belief in many schools? Why would someone keep removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just removed it again, because I found nothing in the reference you gave that verifies these specific dates. The only thing I see in The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism under Shakyamuni is that "he was born on the eighth day of the fourth month", but it doesn't say what calendar. Given that it is in China and Japan, I don't think that makes it the Gregorian calendar. - SudoGhost 22:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added it again, with the citation improved. The dates have been converted into our own calendar. This tradition is important in many schools, including Nichiren Buddhism, and the dates are honoured by many Buddhists. I see no reason for it to be removed again, other than sectarian bias. If you are still not happy with it, please post here first [before removing it] so I can find more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your claim above is not verified by the reliable source you added, and the subsequent source you added is not a reliable source. Please do not state that anyone that removes it must have a "bias", as the only bias I have in this instance is towards material that is not reliably sourced. Making presumptuous and ignorant comments like that is not likely to help you achieve what you're looking for. You're more than welcome to find these reliable sources, and discuss them, before reinserting the material. I have no issue with the article stating that some schools hold that his birth was on date XYZ, but like all material, it needs to be reliably sourced. - SudoGhost 01:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as a response to this, the The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism does not match what you're saying. It states "the eighth day of the fourth month", not April 8. The key thing here is that it is not the the eighth day of the fourth month of the Gregorian calendar, but the Chinese Lunar calendar.

• These dates are according to a lunar calendar, so the festival called "Eighth Day of the Fourth Month" is not on April 8, but on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month (usually sometime in May).[1]
• ...Celebrated in China, Korea and Japan on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month...[2]

This is why I removed the April 8th reference, and asked for a WP:RS. Because the sources I found do not support a Gregorian calendar date of April 8th, and the The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism reference you provided does not either. I assure you, I did not remove it because of some "bias" or some grand evil scheme. I have no issue with information being in the article, if it can be verified, but it hasn't been verified by a reliable source. - SudoGhost 16:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. According to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha%27s_birthday#Japan_2 :

"As a result of the Meiji Restoration, Japan adopted the Gregorian calendar rather than the Chinese lunar calendar in 1873. The 4th month in the Chinese lunar calendar is translated into April or May. Therefore Buddha's birth is celebrated on April 8 or May 8 in many Japanese temples, and rarely on the orthodox Chinese calendar date."

So yes, I had worded it wrong, and the citation didn't match what I added. But I think this info would be goon in the article, when it's worded and referenced correctly. Steve Milburn (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

BCE - wrong imo.

I appreciate the attempt to be PC by using BCE/CE as opposed to BC/AD, but how can you refer to Buddha in an article as being born before the Common Era as opposed to being born Before Christ? When I was in Nepal the first time, travelling from India, I was (pleasantly) surprised to see the newspapers giving the date as c.2,500+. They date the start at Buddha's birth. And Muslims do from Mohammed. And as there are more Buddhists and Muslims than Christians, it is insulting and offensive to use Common Era, imo.

You could say he was born year zero in the Buddhist Calender (563 Before Christ and 1185 - or whatever - Before Mohammed), or you could just use BC (while explaining that Buddhists start the calender year at his birth).

Before Christ is correct. Before Common Era, when for most people it is not the common era, is not.

I'm not a Christian, btw. It's just when I was living in France, I thought how lucky we were to have BC/AD, not Av.-J.C./Apr.-J.C.

BC/BCE can be a real problem for years close to 0 BC/AD. We all know that Buddha was born c. 500 years before JC, but I just checked (I'm no good on Roman history) and Augustus Caesar died in 14AD (according to wiki). I'll remember that. Had it said CE, I bet within 6 months I'd have forgotten whether it was CE or BCE.

The letters are too close.

If the PC brigade (wrongly, I feel) believe that AD is insulting to non-Christians, fine. But Common Era is just as bad.

If I had to choose the change, I'd have BC and After Jesus. Then we could have, I dunno, Before Gautum, After Buddha or before Mohammed and After Prophet. Though maybe you'd want the initial of the Romanised words for before and after in Sanskrit and Arabic - assuming they all have different letters. But that's getting silly and confusing. But if you want to be right-on why not use AD/BC (after all, you think it's the Common term) and add the dates in the other calenders in brackets.

Sorry, but I never remember BCE/CE years around year 1 AD or BC, just like I could never remember the French dates - was it av or apr? It's putting ideology in the way of function. And the only people offended by AD in my experience are PC whites from Western countries (all of which have a Christian heritage). btw the Mohammed page give the AD date then the year 11 AH. Can we have a Common terminology for wiki please. At least for each language.

Just a thought. If there's a good reason for the differences, I'm perfectly happy to stand corrected as I'm very new to all this. Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganpati23 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about dating conventions is often seen as fairly lame on WP. We have a rule that we simply use the first dating convention found in the article forever, unless there's a really good reason to switch. FYI: Since BC/AD is explicitly Christian, its secular counterpart BCE/ACE is most often used in academia, and would tend to be most appropriate for non-Christian subjects such as this. They refer to the same thing, so if you can understand what it means, then it doesn't matter which we use; arguing about it really isn't productive, so I'd suggest just moving on rather than battling it out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

If someone can put into the very first paragraph, that Gautama was a reformer of the extreme ascetiscism of the Shramana religion, I would really appreaciate it. CO2Northeast (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If we have sources for it, that may be a good addition. I don't think changing the first sentence to make that the defining characteristic of Gautama Buddha is the best idea. If it's in the article already, then incorporating it into the lead somewhere else may be useful, proportionate to its weight in the sources. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Source to Andre Bareau

Ref 50 is referenced to:

'Bareau, André, Les récits canoniques des funérailles du Buddha et leurs anomalies : nouvel essai d'interprétation, BEFEO, t. LXII, Paris, 1975, pp.151-189'.

Has this source been verified? I did a quick search on Google, and found a link to this book (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Les_r%C3%A9cits_canoniques_des_fun%C3%A9railles.html?id=nzDcYgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y):

Les récits canoniques des funérailles du Buddha et leurs anomalies: nouvel essai d'interprétation [by Andre Bareau], according to Google though, that book only has 39 pages, and the book that has referenced is 'pp.151-189'.

Can someone please confirm if this is a reliable citation/reference. Steve Milburn (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Order of Teaching according to Mahayana Tradition

The Chinese Scholar T'ien-T'ai (538-597 CE) taught that Shakyamuni taught over Five Periods. Which were:

1) The Flower Garland Period (taught immediately after Shakyamuni attained Buddhahood). 2) The Agama Period (taught at Deer Park). 3) The Correct and Equal Period. 4) The Wisdom Period. 5) The Lotus and Nirvana Period.

Ref: SGI Dictionary of Buddhism, entry: Five Periods. http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php

Any thoughts on adding this to the article somewhere?

Steve (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2012

Change the section about where he was born to "modern day Nepal" instead of "today in Nepal" Thank you Jonathanator1 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: -- While it is admittedly badly worded, I don't think you understand what the infobox is trying to say. It's saying the area today is known as Nepal, so the box is correct to say "today in Nepal" (ie Lumbini is in the area known as Nepal today). However I will try and make it more understandable. Thanks. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012

Please change "Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded." to "The Founder of Buddhism was the historical Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Gotama) born as Prince Siddhartha of the Himalayan Sakya Kingdom. The natives of ancient Nepal were the Kirat people (Tamang, Sherpa, Rai, Gurung, Newar etc.), better known as the Gurkhas today.1http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412809/Newar" Nepal Kirat (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The lede appears to be in the normal style and contains information developed later in the article. The other information does not belong here. Sorry, Celestra (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The current information provided on this page presents a distorted picture of the historical Buddha as of Indian origin, when current UNESCO and other American anthropological experts have already arrived at a consensus, that the historical Buddha was of Himalayan (Tibeto-Burman) lineage. Rejecting proper evidence-based references, in favour of out-dated, speculative literature references on the historical Buddha, contradicts both the American as well as Wikipedia's 'DNA', which is to educate and clarify, based on gold-standard / bona fide sources of information, as much as possible. Even if folk tales, legends and myths are to be included, these should not preclude proper, accepted, scientific research outcomes by anthropologists and archaeologists. Don't you think? With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 16 February 2012

Please change "The time of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[3] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.[4][5] UNESCO lists Lumbini, Nepal, as a world heritage site and birthplace of Gautama Buddha.[6][7] There are also claims about birth place of Gautama Buddha to be Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[8][9][10][11][12] He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.[13][14]" to "The birth year and location of the historical Buddha is stated as 623 BC (at Lumbini, Nepal), in the UNESCO monograph. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666" Nepal Kirat (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The UNESCO source is already included in the current paragraph, which appears to be a neutral handling of the fact that many opinions exist about this. The source is not clear about about the date, later stating in the text May 642BC, which is included in the ranges in the current text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Celestra: The out-dated, speculative references about ......Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, modern India..... Orissa, modern India.[7][8][9][10][11] should be removed. I believe Wikipedia's original vision is to educate and clarify, and not to confuse or mislead readers seeking facts. New scientific data, validated by UNESCO experts in this field, have proven the abovementioned statements as incorrect and speculative. It is therefore reasonable to remove this specific tract already proven obsolete / unreliable. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Do you have reliable sources specifically showing that these sources are obsolete and/or unreliable? A conflicting account does not satisfy this assertion. - SudoGhost 06:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned in my current edit request, the latest consensus amongst scholars in this field with respect to the historical Buddha's origin is best exemplified by the official UNESCO position, as published in their online website on this matter. As an analogy, if the latest definition for type 2 diabetes mellitus is already published in the WHO and ADA clinical practice guidelines, would a modern guide on type 2 diabetes include obsolete definitions of this condition, to confuse readers? In the same vein, we need to rely on appropriate gold standard international bodies when it comes to educating the public. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

See below. - SudoGhost 06:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We do not try to determine truth here - we try to write from a neutral point of view and provide the reader a blend of different viewpoints, weighted by their prominence. The viewpoint presented by UNESCO is already included in the current neutral text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

Please amend "Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded." to "Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम बुद्ध; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Himalayas, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded."

The reasons are: The current term 'Indian subcontinent' is both misleading and out-dated. Latest published anthropological and archaeological evidences, validated by UNESCO international experts in this field, now clearly state that the historical Buddha is of indigenous Himalayan (Nepalese) origin. (Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Nepal Kirat (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While the UNESCO version is the generally given account, it is not a definitive agreed upon matter. Indian subcontinent is factual no matter which account is correct. The edit request alludes to "latest published evidences" without actually providing them. As the Indian subcontinent wording was arrived at by consensus, I think a new consensus should be established before changing it. - SudoGhost 06:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As explained in my current edit request, one of the underlying premise is that the current term 'Indian subcontinent' is misleading vis-a-vis the more definitive / specific use of 'Himalayas'. The geographical word 'Himalayas' is neutral, as India has Sikkim, which is part of the Himalayas. Furthermore, 'Himalayas' will accurately reflect latest scientific results showing the historical Buddha's Tibeto-Burman ethnic origins. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

What scientific results? You need to provide them, instead of alluding to them. Also, Himalayas does not appear to be in line with what the spectrum of conflicting sources show. - SudoGhost 06:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to SudoGhost: The word 'Himalayas' is an accepted noun for the geographical area, now validated by UNESCO, as the birthplace of the historical Buddha. UN experts do not lightly state their position, unless the scientific findings are solid. With regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

Please read what was written directly above your comment, because every bit of what I wrote still very much applies to your most recent comment as well. - SudoGhost 07:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please read the policy about WP:NPOV. We cannot replace a neutral handling of a variety of significant viewpoints with a single viewpoint, regardless of the source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Celestra: With respect to 'neutrality', this should not serve as an excuse to perpetuate misleading, incredible and/or out-dated information. The UNESCO reference is a case study of this. I am disappointed that Wikipedia, insofar as the write-up on the historical Buddha is concerned, is clearly being hijacked by a small group with vested interests, pushing 'neutral point-of-view' as a cloak to pursue their own agenda. No offence intended, just a frank assessment of the current situation. Thanks and regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Please argue the merits of your requested edits rather than casting aspersions on the characters of other editors. This is not acceptable behavior.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No offense, I meant :) As mentioned earlier, the UNESCO has made clear their scientific position about the historical Buddha being born in 623 BC, in the Himalayas (Lumbini, Nepal). The merits of the requested edits are clear - the UNESCO scientific panel reviews a range of data that include findings from internationally peer-reviewed, published, archaeological (field) work. Please do not put labels on my comments, unless the facts I have put forward here are properly countered by references that are equally robust, if not better. Thanks and regards, (Nepal Kirat (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC))